Imagine if You Were Powerless

Trigger Warning. I am not sure how to label it beyond that.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

The Trans Community lost a child last week. It’s probably not big news everywhere, it happens so often, but in my corner of the web things have exploded.

On 28 December, 2014, Leelah Alcorn walked in front of an oncoming truck. She was only a few months shy of her eighteenth birthday.

Since then members of the LGBTQ community and their allies have been posting about it on Facebook, Tweeting about it, and writing articles for various websites (such as the link above).

I have seen people label what happened as abuse and negligence, and I have seen people defend her parents as innocent. I am not going to voice my opinion in this article, because that is not what this post is about.

When she decided to leave, she left a message behind in the form of a set of Tumblr posts that were scheduled to post after the fact. Her Tumblr profile is no longer there but the various articles go into detail about what she said.

What has prompted this article however was what I have seen in conversations on Facebook.

I have seen people defend the parents’ innocence, insisting that they were in no way responsible for their child’s suicide.

I have seen people insist that being trans was a mental illness, a delusional disorder. They insisted that the parents were simply doing everything they could. They insisted that it was up to Leelah to dig deeper into her spiritual reserves to find inner strength to persevere just a little while longer.

I have seen people refer to her as delusional, a coward, selfish. They have expressed no sign of empathy or compassion for a child who was so lost that she would take her own life. They only expressed defensiveness because they felt their religion was coming under attack for the role that it played in this child’s death.

They insist that there was no abuse obvious in the stories they have read, or what they have heard from the family, who told CNN that they loved their SON unconditionally, but just couldn’t support THAT religiously.

For the Christians that are out there, that just don’t understand how there could possibly be any abuse in what the family did, or how it could possibly lead to a child’s death, please read on. I present here a thought exercise.

Imagine this:

You were born into a non-Christian family, but you came to know Christ. At a young age, your family found out about it, and forbid you from practicing.

They tell you it is just a phase and will soon pass.

You aren’t Christian, you are just confused.

They love you, but they just can’t accept this part of you.

They don’t let you talk to Christian friends. They look over your shoulder to be sure you aren’t visiting Christian websites. They go as far as to say there is no such thing as a Christian.

Now extend this out to the rest of your life. None of your friends at school, at least the ones you are allowed to talk to are Christian, and they either blow it off, or they actively attack you.

Imagine half of them don’t believe Christianity is a thing, and the other half believe you will burn in Hell for it.

Some are convinced you are going to aggressively recruit them, and verbally or physically attack you for even talking to them once they find out you are Christian.

Now extend it out further. The city council has voted in laws saying it is legal to discriminate against you because of who you are. You have committed no crime, but this existential part of your psyche is grounds to take away your rights.

People can legally declare self-defense if they attack you because your beliefs freak them out.

Extend this out further: your state legislature has passed laws saying that Christianity is an affront to their faith and an attack of civil society.

Your very existence is a blight on humanity. They are not only not going to censure your city level law makers, they are passing laws forbidding you from even taking the case to a civil or legal court.

Extend it out further: The national legislature is made up primarily of members of this majority religion. Some of them pay lip service to civil rights, but the rest actively work to codify the abuse you are receiving at the national level.

The Supreme Court, every member of which is this other religion, rules almost unanimously that there is no reason to protect your rights.

It’s your choice to believe in your God. They hold up the handful of Christians in the legislature as examples of why everything is perfectly fine.

Extend this out. The UN pays lip service to civil rights protections, but don’t really give a fuck. After all, they are all in the majority religion, or one of the larger groups.

The fact that it is unofficially, but effectively legal to kill you in the streets like a rabid dog is a primarily domestic issue.

Beyond that, your nation has veto power if the UN did decide to move.

There is a small ray of hope. There are obvious natural allies in the world, people who should understand your plight entirely. There are other Abrahamic religions who are also persecuted. They stand together with each other, and it would be expected that they should stand with you as well. Except they don’t most of the time.

Most of the time, members of these other two religions will pay lip service to having you around. They might even drag you from one party to another sometimes, to prove they have a Christian friend. When your back is against the wall though, they are just as freaked out by your Christianity as the members of the majority religion.

I know this sounds outlandish, but all I have really done is taken a description of the life of a member of the Trans community, and replaced them with religious labels and terms.

Even in places where great strides have been made for gay and lesbian men and women, trans people have been left in the dark. When they speak up, they are told by the LGB community that they are being selfish and asking for too much. I left off the T and the Q, because in this context the L and the G may as well be a bunch of cis straight dudes.

Try looking at the story through different eyes and see how different it looks.

Don’t look at everything from the perspective of the straight conservative Christian who is feeling insecure because someone has said their religion has caused harm to some minority.

Look at it for a moment through the eyes of a scared child, who belongs to a class of people who is a minority within the minority, whose very existence is treated as an abomination, and isn’t even allowed the strength that friends and family could provide.

Then ask if it is such a wild idea that she could have broken, that she could have found herself walking off into the darkness with no beacon to guide her home. The people who were responsible for holding the light up for her were the ones that took it away and left her to wander.

 

 

“Studies”

So,

About once a year we see “studies” released by research institutes that just happen to be run by religious organizations or conservative think tanks, that say that [Insert Minority Group A] tends to have a higher rate of suicide than those who are “normal.”

The one that sparked this response just happens to be a post saying that Atheists tend to have a higher suicide rate than Christians.

There is one factor that this willfully ignorant bastards consistently ignore when they interpret the “findings” from their “studies.”

Any time you have a group that is consistently physically and emotionally abused, ostracized, otherized, and treated in general as sub-human, you are going to have a higher rate of suicide.

Atheists, LGBT folk, Pagans, and other groups that the majority deems to be “unfavorable,” face very real persecution in this country.

And by persecution, I don’t just mean they get offended on a regular basis, or that their feelings get hurt. I mean that society looks the other way as they are attacked, physically and verbally. Society looks the other way as their homes and businesses are burned. There is an entire history of Atheists, and homosexuals being killed in the streets and the police shrugging it off and moving on. Just as often it happens in the back woods where their families aren’t even given the benefit of a proper funeral until their bodies are found months later.

For those in power who keep screaming “I’m being persecuted,” persecution is a real thing. And yes, persecution tends to lead people to be more inclined to do something stupid.

They do these “studies,” and point to them as evidence that whatever thing they find uncomfortable was obviously unholy and unnatural to begin with, while totally ignoring Human nature.

A person being an Atheist does not make them unstable or an abomination.
A person being gay does not make them unstable or an abomination.
A person being human does not make them unstable or an abomination.

A person being abused to the breaking point, being told that they are abominations, being told that they are un-American by their very existence, being kicked out of their homes, outcast by their families, abused by people that should be their friends, constantly in fear that they might be the next dead queer/witch/heathen in some assholes back pasture… THAT makes a person unstable.

The text of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom

I do not normally copy and past other people’s work, but this piece of work is a very important one, and has been in the public domain for well over a century, especially given that it is a piece of legislation.

It is worth a read.

======
An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.
======

Jefferson later wrote, of the statute, that it contained “within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

This was the same man who wrote and championed the First Ammendment of our constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Statute_for_Religious_Freedom

What Happened at the Congressional Hearing on Religious Accommodations in the Military?

So,

There was this thing recently with Congress. They somewhat set the tone a few months ago, when they up and canceled after all the involved parties had already landed at the airport.

Sadly, the tone continued, and Congress (or at least the sub-comity that deals with the military) has reinforced that they only take religious liberty seriously when it applies to their brand of their religion.

Yes, Weinstein is loud, and flamboyant, and angry, but he is also one of the handful of people who have had the will power and determination to take on this cause. He also was not near as angry a decade ago.

The goal is not to secularize the Chaplain Corps.

The goal is not to stomp out Christianity in the military. The only people you hear talking about that are the talking heads who make money off of fear.

The goal is simply to make room for the measurable number of service members who are currently unrepresented in the military.

In the current environment, there are no Humanist Chaplains, Secular or otherwise. People seeking to become Humanist lay leaders have to run a gambit, and fight an uphill battle, just to prove that they have a right to exist much less be allowed space in the Religious Programs. In fact, a few days ago the one “Atheist” lay leader that the Navy had approved was reclassified by his CO to fall under MWR rather than the Chapel. “This re-designation aligns the atheist-freethinker leader under the appropriate non-religious instruction.” Is how they describe this. I know that the guy apparently considers himself Atheist rather than Humanist, but still…

Some branches are better than others, and some commands are better than others. I personally have dealt with Chaplains that will do everything they can to support everyone spiritually, regardless of faith. I have also dealt with Chaplains though that would be all smiles and politics while a perspective lay leader is in the room, and then once they left specifically suggest that I not support that person because he is not sure he wants their kind in the Chapel.

Christianity is not in any danger of being driven out of the Military. It is not even in any danger of being replaced as the majority religion. There is no danger there. What does feel like a very real and present threat though, especially with the new comity leaders that are coming into place in congress, is the danger that many minority groups may be trampled, with the vast majority of the herd that is trampling them not even knowing it is happening.

The majority of Service Members are Christian. This is true. Not all are though. Many service members are not Christian, Muslims, or Jews. The military handles these three faiths just fine.

A large number of service members either have no religion or fall into a category not currently available in the military records system.

A measurable number of service members specifically consider themselves Humanists. The last time I checked, the reported number was 3.6%. That is a higher percentage than some Christian groups that have multiple chaplains, and have no problems getting lay leaders approved. That is three times the rate of Jewish service members, and the military is actively seeking Rabbis.

Embedded in all of the appropriate documents, from the manuals that organize the military, all the way to the instructions that organize and direct the Chaplain Corps of the various services, is a message of inclusiveness. On paper, the military does not endorse ANY religion, or “faith group,” and supports them all.

In practice, we still have a long way to go.

Humanists have been doing everything they can to express the need for support. Congress has done everything they can to make it known that they do not give a damn what we need.

The most screwed up part is that the party giving us the most grief is the one who has screamed “Support our Troops!” at the top of their lungs for at least as long as I have been alive.

I actually typed most of this a few days ago, but I got side tracked mid-rant. This is probably a good thing, because on review, I think this is a good stopping point for now.

I will include a link to an article on the subject. The first link I saw was written by Mikey Weinstein. He has been in the fight too long, and what he wrote showed it. The guy needs a rest. This article was posted on a Humanist news site, and is a lot more level headed. Anger may be useful for rallying the troops, but it isn’t the best tool for explaining your needs to those who don’t quite understand.

http://thehumanist.com/news/national/what-happened-at-the-congressional-hearing-on-religious-accommodations-in-the-military

Keep Your Feet on the Ground

It is important for those of us who have a political or activist mindset to keep our feet on the ground.

While you are focused on whatever it is that is stressing you at the moment, you need to remember why it is you put yourself through it.

Whether you are in small town politics, and are spending time in a conference room fighting with those who should be your allies, or you are an activist standing on the picket line, marching in demonstrations, or when it comes down to it, tossing bricks, or a blogger, who is processing all the chaos that is taking place in this world so that you can filter it and present it in a way that is sane and reasonable to a normal person, remember why you are there.

Remember that the normal things in life are still taking place. Those little things that make life what it is. Remember that families are still going on outings, and children are doing their best to learn in school. Babies are learning to crawl and to talk, and life goes on.

For most, that is the entire point. We want to make a world that is better, cleaner, safer for things like that.

Screw the details, whether you consider yourself an activist or just an overly political Facebook user, a Republican, a Democrat, a Socialist or an Anarchist we are all out there fighting the same fight in our own way for the same reasons.

So, when the stress starts to weigh on you, just remember: Sometimes you have to say fuck it, and back away for a bit. You have to take a moment to take care of yourself and think about all the little things in life, and forget about whatever it is that is stressing you the hell out.

I know it is easier said than done, especially if you are one of those who are physically in the fray. Just remember, no person is an island and we all have to stand together. You aren’t going to be able to hold your brother up if you let yourself fall.

This is Not Satire

Ok..

People need to learn what Satire is…

And no, in this case I am NOT talking about the people who spread satirical posts thinking they are real.

Dictionary.com defines satire like this:

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

There is another aspect of satire that is quite often forgotten these days. Satire is honest. It is honest to the point of drawing blood. It is a look at society at a level that makes us uncomfortable, because it charges the status quo like a lance. I choose a lance, and not some other weapon for a reason. A lance risks its own destruction as it plunges into the armor of an enemy of equal or greater power. And they do all this in the light of day, where everyone can see their success, but also their failures.

Satire is commentary on the powerful. It is a direct attack on the status quo. It is meant to teach, to goad, to coerce.

Satirists mock, taunt, and deride the powerful and influential.

They target those who are in position to make policy, or who have the ear of those who make policy.

They make mock those who are in a place to right their position and make amends.

They go after those who have willfully put themselves in the wrong.

They do not make fun of the weak. They do not taunt and torment those bellow them. They do not bully those who cannot defend themselves or who cannot change that which they are targeting them for.

That is not satire, that nothing more than playground bullying taken before a wider audience.

Please, keep this in mind when you re-share links and images from “Satire” sites.

A few good examples:

The Onion: They are open and up front about what they are. They proudly announce that they are a satire site. And, while they skirt the boundaries on occasion, their targets are almost always those in power.

The Daily Currant: You have to dig, and dig hard to find that they are a satire site. No one is safe from their attacks, not even the innocent. As long as they can get a laugh, they don’t care if they actually have a message.

You may wonder what brought on this rant. The answer to that is simple. I have seen too many people posting utter bullshit, taken from sites that paint themselves up to be “news,” while attacking people who just don’t agree with them, with flat out lies, and calling it “satire.”

The direct trigger in this case is a flood of posts from a website called ChristWire (http://www.christwire.com/). Not only do they not have the site marked anywhere as a satire site, but they have multiple posts arguing that they are not satire.

The site pretends to be a news blog. It posts the most nonsensical stories possible, insisting that they are real news, with real facts, and real implications, and that the author of the articles is an Evangelical Christian.

Instead the blog is filled with “news” that is made up of fake “facts” about everything from claims that Pokemon is encouraging demon worship, to Obama is infecting Christians with Ebola. They back up their stories with references to fake news reports, “first-hand knowledge,” and badly done Photoshoped pictures.

They are presenting this as what the Rank and File Christian believes.

While they do have stories that deal somewhat with the day to day news, they are presented in the form of “This is the paranoid delusional idea that these people believe.”

They do not target the powerful. They do not target the influential or the famous. They target the rank and file Christian.

They paint a picture of idiocy and say “Look at the nonsense these people believe.”

That is not satire.

That is the sort of bullying that most of us were taught to avoid as children.

They are not attacking the leadership of any organization. They are not attacking the Vatican, or the SBC. They are attacking our neighbors, and using lies to do it.

Satire is about presenting the truth in a way to teach. Satirists choose to be the “fool,” not the bully.

These people are the thugs of the internet, and they hide behind the label of “satire” because they figure people are too dumb to get what they are doing.

Net Neutrality

So, there is this argument/debate going on about net neutrality.

If you are reading this, then the internet is likely a major part of your life. There is a good chance that it is involved in everything you do in some ways. If you are reading this on a two to five inch screen, then it is almost guaranteed.

I know that I am always on Facebook. I get recipes online. I use the internet to learn about everything. Even if I don’t play a lot of online games these days (time issue), the internet is where I get most of my games. Seriously, Origin and Steam take up the vast majority of a terabyte hard drive with just over a hundred gigs free on it (For those who don’t know, Origin is EA Game’s version of Steam. If you don’t know what Steam is, it has been described as “The iTunes of Games.” If you don’t know what iTunes is, I think you are probably here by accident because you are trying to figure out who left their phone laying on the bench in some public place).

Now, how does this all apply to the issue of net neutrality?

The internet is a platform that ties pretty much everything together. It is made up of a massive number of networks that are tied together by a massive backbone. That backbone, and its connections to the smaller networks, is where the battle is taking place. And it is a battle. There may not be guns involved, but the outcome will impact all of us in one way or another.

A few decades ago, it was decided that this backbone (or these backbones rather) would carry data between networks in a neutral manner. Data going to Yahoo and Google would have the same level of priority as data going to a blog or a personal web page. This simple concept built the internet as we know it. This concept was the most important building block that allowed us to build the world we have today. It is what allowed small time web developers to create empires. It is what allowed Facebook to ever become a thing. It is what allows people on AOL to access websites that are not on the AOL network (If you have been online long enough, and started out on AOL, you may have a special understanding of this one).

The concept is simple: I pay my ISP. Facebook pays their ISP. The ISP’s then pay for access to the backbone. We get access to each other (i.e. I can access Facebook). Everyone pays for what they use.

Now, enter the idea of eliminating net neutrality. Suddenly, I pay my ISP. Netflix pays their ISP. Our ISP’s pay the backbones. So far so good. Now, suddenly Netflix gets a letter from the backbone provider that goes something like this “Want to keep your bandwidth up? Send us a check, and we will make sure you get better speeds.”

Wait a minute. They ALREADY paid for that bandwidth. They shouldn’t have to pay again.

Another form that it can take, that is a little less obvious, but just as bad, say it’s not the backbone that is doing this, but MY ISP. Say, Time Warner sends Netflix a letter saying “We have a pool of customers in common. If you want them to continue to enjoy the Netflix experience, you are going to pay us.”

Wait a minute. I already paid my ISP for just that experience. I already pay a MASSIVE amount (compared to the speed we get Americans pay more for internet access than most of the rest of the world) for access to the internet, and to get good speeds. The ISP specifically said that these speeds are ideal for streaming movies.

With net neutrality, we all pay for the bandwidth we use, the ISP’s and the backbone providers get filthy rich.

Without net neutrality, we all pay for the bandwidth we use, and content providers also pay for the bandwidth we use. They pretty much have to pass that extra expense on to us if they are going to stay in business. After all, this whole most expensive crappy internet in the world thing impacts them too, not just us.

The end result is that any company large enough to be able to afford to pay the kickbacks is going to be able to keep going, but their prices are going to go up. I am probably one of the most anti-corporate people I know, but I am not likely to blame them when that happens. Some of the really large ones may be able to balance the costs in order to keep the price hike from being too much, but those in the middle won’t have an option.

The smaller companies we deal with on a day to day basis? Well, they are going to have to come up with ways to make the experience of accessing their services comfortable with sub-par speeds, because in a world where people have become accustomed to being able to download data at high speeds, a slow page load will be sufficient to kill many companies out right.

If net neutrality dies, then so does an important part of the net. Net neutrality is what keeps the internet grassroots alive. I personally have a blog (you are likely reading this either on Facebook or on that blog). My blog is hosted by a small time ISP. They have server banks in three countries, but they are still tiny as far as ISP’s go. If net neutrality dies, I hope that they can afford to pay the extra fees to keep speeds decent. If they have to raise their prices to do so, I will completely understand.

The better option though is for us to find a way to make the politicians understand that net neutrality is important to the little guy, and the little guy is who votes for them. We need to find a way to insure that the politicians feel that their stance on net neutrality can have a real impact on their electoral chances. Just as importantly though, we have to make sure that this happens while the opposition is spending massive amounts of money to make things go their way.

After all, in a post “Citizens United” America, their stance on net neutrality already impacts their chances at reelection, because the telco’s are spending money on lobbying and advertising. Guess who is going to get the big corporate bucks for their campaign war chests.

The Argument For Humanist Chaplains

There has been a lot of talk lately about “Atheist” Chaplains, and Atheist groups pushing to get them instated in the US Military. Fox News and other right wing outlets are playing it up as part of their imagined attack/war on and/or persecution of Christianity. I know the word imagined can be seen as inflammatory, but that is what it is. Imagined. That is a conversation for another post.

Real simple, while Christianity is by far the largest, most represented, faith group (or combination of faith groups) in the US Military, other groups exist as well. A lot of military personnel think of themselves as Humanists. With the exception of a few liberal Unitarian chaplains, that are functionally broad minded Christians, there is no Humanist representation among the Chaplain Corps. For that matter, when it comes to issues of accommodation and facilitation, a lot of Chaplains don’t know what is needed to support a Humanist group.

Most of the time, in this situation, the answer would be clear. Track down a phone number or an email address for a fellow chaplain that belongs to that group/category and ask them. The problem is that we don’t HAVE any Humanist Chaplains.

Notice something about the last two paragraphs. I don’t use the word Atheist anywhere in them. There is a reason for that. The groups that are pushing this are not asking for “Atheist” Chaplains. They are asking for “Humanist” Chaplains.

There are different kinds of Humanists, just like there are different kinds of Christians. Look at the difference between Catholics and Baptists, or Methodists and Seventh Day Adventists. They have some basic differences in their beliefs, but their beliefs are similar enough in nature that they can all be comfortable using the label Christian. They also share a common set of concepts and ideas that are derived from these beliefs. It forms a common set of experiences and a common vocabulary with which they can discuss these ideas. It is the commonality that makes them all Christians.

The same goes for Humanists. There are Secular Humanists, Buddhist Humanists, even representatives from various different spiritual traditions that think of themselves as Humanists first.

I myself am Buddhist. I practice a Humanistic form of Buddhism. This is to say that I am a Humanist first and a Buddhist second. That is true for most of the practitioners of my religion. Humanism is a part of who and what we are.

I am a Humanist. Humanism is the core of my morality. Humanism is the foundation of my beliefs and influences my every action, and my every decision. It is what provides me strength in times of suffering, and support in times of grief. It is the source of my spirituality. For me, it very much plays the same role as any other faith or religion does for others.

I would like very much to have a chaplain available that knows the language that I speak. One that can understand the way I think, the way I look at the world. One that is not going to look at me differently because my source of morality, my source of faith, my focus on life does not have or require a specific divine entity.

I am often alienated by the very community I serve because they do not understand the way that I look at the world. They make comments disparaging my faith as if it were not even real. They question if people who think the way I do can even understand concepts such as awe, wonder, or even joy and sadness. They say things without even realizing it that make me effectively “Other,” an outsider. And there are no Chaplains in our armed forces that can support me fully, because the military would rather pander to the concerns and fears of the Christian majority than actually fulfil their promise to support the troops in their spiritual needs.

I think the simplest summary of the situation is this: A faith group that doesn’t have Chaplains wants Chaplains. They have an endorsing authority that meets all the prerequisites. They have men and women they are willing to endorse that meet all the prerequisites other than having an authorized endorsing agent. If these people were allowed to become Chaplains, they would still be in the vast minority. Christians would not be harmed in any way. Those who profess to be Humanists would greatly helped. Religious freedom in the military would be improved.

When the subject first came to public light, there was a massive freakout, and politicians started playing the issue to their advantage by “Championing the Christian Cause.”

Basically, those politicians intentionally muddied the water, and changed words in order to freak out their base and use that fear to get more votes. I am not pointing fingers, because Republicans and Democrats alike lined up to say “We will protect your rights.” And by protecting their rights, they meant their feelings. In order to protect people’s feelings, they would proceed for multiple years to stomp (or rather renew their stomping with great vigor) on the rights of others who were not like them.

They would replace the word Humanist with Atheist, because the word Atheist scares people. They would insist that the military already had counselors, entirely discounting the need for actual Chaplains all together. They would propose bills to create a position for an “Atheist Chaplain,” knowing full well it would get no support and serve merely as a punching bag for them to attack to get more votes.

First off, no new positions are needed. The current Chaplaincy has the infrastructure and guidelines to support an interfaith community if they so choose. We already have Chaplains that are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist (Pretty much numbered in order from largest to smallest group). These are not four “positions,” or four “staff corps.” They are all Chaplains. They all have the same job description. Other than denominational and religious requirements placed on them by their endorsing agents, they all have the same rules and guidelines.

No new position is needed. They simply need to look at the organizations that have come forward and presented their credentials as endorsing agencies, and pick at least one. I am not saying they should just give it away. I am saying that they should verify that the organization meets their requirements, and move forward in partnership with them. They should treat them the same as they do any of the other two hundred or so endorsing agents.

Humanists are not all Atheists. Atheists are not all Humanists. A Secular Humanist Chaplain however would be able to understand the needs and thought processes of other Humanists. They would better understand where they gain their strength, their will the fight, their moral compass.

And briefly, for those who don’t know, and haven’t figured it out from the label yet, rather than our belief or disbelief in a particular deity or creative spirit (in the entity sense, rather than the metaphorical sense), it comes from our belief in our fellow man. We are driven by our belief in the potential that rests within us all. We believe that we should do what’s right because it is right and not because there is any reward in it. We believe that our most sacred duty is to work to create a better world for ourselves and our fellow man.

Want to know what the funniest part is? There is as much push back from the Atheist Community on this as there is from the Christian Community, because they have bought into the same damned notion of an “Atheist Chaplain,” as the Christians have. No, the Atheists for the most part don’t care if they have a Chaplain. Labels matter.

Christians are uncomfortable with the idea. Atheists are uncomfortable with the idea. I imagine some other religious groups may be as well (mostly because of the labeling). Humanists however need this.

Just remember, allowing other people the same rights that you have does not diminish your rights. Disallowing other people rights that you have however does eventually diminish your rights. If we allow anyone to be treated as less than human, it will eventually come back to us.

Common Core, and Punching at Shadows

I am seeing a lot of posts lately about Common Core. Yes, Common Core is so much bullshit, but so are most of the posts.

If you see some obscenely politically biased piece of tripe posted as an example of what common core is, recognize it for what it is.

It is a teacher, a school district, or a private company that wrote the curriculum the school is using taking advantage of your children and blaming it on a standard that doesn’t even cover most of the issues that are being blamed on it.

Common core has its issues, I am not a supporter of it. What I am a supporter of though is reality. There is a lot of BS going on out there, and they are using common core as a scapegoat to get away with it.

If you want to know what is in the Common Core, go look at it. It is easy to find. Google and Bing will bring it up real quick. I am including a link though, just in case.

It deals with mathematics and language skills. That is pretty much it. It deals with foundational educational stuff. My objections to it stem from the fact that it is very much biased towards improving things in wealthy areas, while telling pretty much everyone else they can fuck off. That is totally ignoring the fact that it is biased entirely against anyone who is not “normal.”

The worst part though is that it is a standard designed to create the workforce of the twenty first century, and not well rounded students. We don’t need more cogs. We need people.

Yes, there are plenty of reasons to dislike common core, but it designed as an economic tool to feed the corporate state capitalistic machine, and is not some liberal ploy to poison the minds of our children.

Common Core holds no political bias, but the bastards that are producing these worksheets we keep seeing on the web sure as hell do.

Yes, fight against Common Core, but also fight against the assholes who are using it as a cudgel to hammer their world views into our children’s heads. It doesn’t matter if they are left leaning or right leaning. Schools should teach children how to think, not what to think.

Home

Some People Need to Get Over Themselves

Ok…

I am reading an article about an Atheist “Megachurch.”

While I agree that the idea of labeling it as a church is kind of odd (I am not sure if that is their label or just what others are calling it), I think the people who are like “That defeats the point of Atheism!” are confused or just nuts.

There is NO central point to Atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. That is pretty much it. Those who are saying “It defeats the point!” are already doing exactly what they are accusing the other group of doing.

There have been a multitude of Atheistic groups for just as long as there have been a multitude of Theistic/Deistic groups.

If a group is trying to do good, and thinks they have found a way, then that is what Humanism in all its various forms is about, and many Atheists are also Humanists.

Give them a shot. Let them do their thing. Worst case scenario, they screw it up. It is still worth letting them try.

And if you are like “They are defeating the purpose of Atheism,” you need to check yourself. You are doing exactly the same thing as the various religious groups that got all agitated when new sects of their religions formed.

If you approach your Atheism, or Atheism in general as a faith a religion or a philosophy, then you need to recognize that others may as well and it is their right to do it differently.

If you don’t approach it like a faith a religion or a philosophy, then why are you even making that comment/asking the question?

The article itself is at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/15/atheism-contrary-to-mega-churches

As of this posting, there is at least one response that is very much worth reading at http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/28911030 .