I Hate The Bible

Listen. I try to be tolerant religiously. I am a member of a minority faith that's often deeply misunderstood and discriminated against. I don't want to pass that prejudice and the ugly feelings that go with it on to other people. I do make a distinction between tolerant Christians, who actually obey Jesus' command to love thy neighbor and do charity to those unlike you, from the fundie assholes who would happily see me and mine suffer for the crime of being who and what we are. I try not to hate Christianity, despite its history of intolerance and bloodshed and misogyny and homophobia. But some days, it's really fucking hard. And today I can't find it in me to carefully make that distinction. Because I'm hurting too goddamn much.

We were, in my Psychology of Personal and Social Behavior class today, discussing gender roles and sexual orientation. The teacher asked us to speak about our experiences of sexual orientation: how did we come to the orientation we are, why do we identify a particular way, that sort of thing. I spoke about occupying the "middle space" between hetero and homosexuality, and having to defend that territory against those who would tell me I do it because it's trendy, or it's "just a phase" and that I'm really a lesbian, or a straight woman who's just experimenting and will settle down and have lots of nice babies with a man someday. It was a little bit nerve-making, but I felt it was important to speak up as someone of a minority orientation, so I did. But there were four to six people (I didn't count exactly) who, in the course of discussing how they came to identify as they do, had to inform us that they identify as straight because "that's how God made us to be" and that "sexuality and marriage is intended to be between one man and one woman, not for sexual immorality" - yes, the phrase "sexual immorality" was used against those of us not in one-man-one-woman-married-coitus situations, in a classroom setting! - and that they are "following God's word". The kindest among them added that she doesn't have anything against us - thank you, ma'am, how magnanimous of you - but she "can't condone [our] lifestyle choices."

It's interesting, how rarely I encounter this kind of outright prejudice directed *at me*. I'm a cis woman, engaged to a cis man, and we are currently monogamous. So people who see us, until discussion turns to exes and they find out about my ex-girlfriends, assume that we're you're average straight people. Unless I come out every time I meet someone new, I have access to passing privilege.

But in this class, I've been outed (courtesy of having to stand up for the very existence of bisexual people, when the professor was asking people to privately divulge to her whether they were heterosexual or homosexual, and I wasn't willing to be labeled as either). And for ten minutes or so, in class, an academic setting where I should be able to be free from that kind of shit so I can focus on learning and succeeding at school...I got to listen to multiple people holding forth on my "sexual immorality" and making sure I knew they "couldn't condone" my loving who I have loved. As if I had ever asked them to.

And it hurt. Their words left bruises on my Self, left me shaking slightly in class and feeling lessened, Othered, and hated. Not a personal hate, I know, but an impersonal sort of de facto hate that is nonetheless every bit as damaging, and perhaps even more so, for it's not a hate based on anything I've *done*, but is based solely on what I *am*. I rolled my eyes so hard I may have sprained them, but dared express nothing more vehement in class. Instead, I came home and told my fiance about the whole ugly experience and cried while he hugged me.

Those people, those Christians, were the only ones in the class to express any problems with other peoples' orientations. All the rest espoused a live-and-let-live attitude. Every one of those who decided it was ok to hate on me and those few others like me in that class, used their precious holy book to justify their nasty prejudices. So right now, while the bruises are still fresh and I still find tears in my eyes when I think too hard about it, I direct my anger and hurt and hate at their justification. The kind of Christianity these people embody is a toxic thing, a rigid religion of hate and holier-than-thou. And if it's the Bible that's giving them the green light to be like that, then it's toxic too.

So I hate the Bible today.

Please don't bother to comment on this post, defending Christianity. I am well aware that not all Christians are like these intolerant asshats. Half of my family and several of my friends are some flavor of Christian or other. So I don't need reminded of the good Christians, and today, frankly, I am not willing or interested to hear it. I need to vent about my hurt, and this is my damn blog, so this is where I get to do it. Cope.

Blog Issues

So I'm having trouble getting the comment box to appear below posts, something to do with the theme I installed last week, I'm pretty sure. I'm going to try to get comments back to normal, but until then, I've got it working as a pop-up window when you click "Post a Comment". So let your pop-up blockers know to let me through, ok?

Sorry for the inconvenience! Also, if anyone who reads this happens to be the kind of person who would know what to look for in fixing this issue and is willing to help, please email me or leave a comment. I know a bit of basic HTML/CSS, and can figure out small tweaks, but I don't know what's wrong with the comments-related code in this template.

I Get Emails

This landed in my inbox today, courtesy of my very, very, very Republican social-conservative father:

Pop quiz: What billion-dollar multinational receives hundreds of millions in tax dollars even though it is enormously profitable?

If your thoughts turned to defense contractors, you would be right about the purpose --

killing --

but wrong about the recipient.

The answer, in fact, is Planned Parenthood.

According to its most recent annual report, in fiscal 2008, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest abortion provider, had annual revenue of more than $1 billion. Of this, about 34 percent was made up of government grants. In other words, almost $350 million of American taxpayer dollars supported the work of Planned Parenthood from October 2007 to September 2008. And, according to tax records from the same time period, this 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization had a net income $85 million greater than its expenses. That looks suspiciously like a profit....

The enterprise of abortion in America is big business. It turns a profit, and for the American taxpayer, the bailout of a financial behemoth -- one engaged in an activity most Americans find troubling -- is obviously unnecessary.

Normally, when I get my father's conservative e-blasts, I just sigh and delete them. But this one was just way too wrong to let slide like that. So I, being the troublemaker I am, hit the reply-all button and said:

"First and most obvious wrongity-wrong-mcwrong: The idea that Planned Parenthood = ABORTIONS! Planned Parenthood actually provides a full range of family planning and reproductive health services. They provide free condoms, free or sliding-scale birth control - in the forms of the Pill, the patch, the ring, diaphragms, IUDs, and the female condom, to name a few - yearly pelvic exams, STD testing, pregnancy testing, and early prenatal checkups. These services actually comprise the bulk of PP's operating, with abortion being a minority of the appointments made. Additionally, the name Planned Parenthood does not automatically mean a clinic which provides abortions. *Some* PP locations also provide abortions, but not all. This conflating of Planned Parenthood and abortion is one of the most pernicious lies of the far-right when it comes to the abortion debate. It erases, covers up, and tries to distract from all the other services Planned Parenthood provides. Which I've always thought was strange...I mean, I'm sure if one is genuinely looking to decrease abortion rates, any place that provides free or low-cost birth control to low-income women deserves support in its mission, rather than lies and opposition, right?

Second wrongity-wrong-mcwrong: The taxpayer dollars that Planned Parenthood receives cannot legally go toward abortion services anyway, making this email one big FAIL of fearmongering about something that can't happen anyway. The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, barred federal dollars from being used to pay for abortion care in any way. The money the government grants to PP goes instead toward providing other reproductive health services, such as the aforementioned birth control and STD testing.

On to the smaller side-note issues. I'd like to question the assumption that abortion is "an activity most Americans find troubling". Got a source on that? Poll data (from a RELIABLE organization, not a rightwing or anti-choice organization)? Anything to support the assertion that "most Americans" find abortion "troubling"? Because me, and my pro-choice friends, we're Americans, too, and I'm not so hot on being spoken for like that without data to back the assertion.

And lastly, for conservatives being all about the free market and free enterprise and pro-business and pro-profit, y'all make a SCREECHINGLY fast 180 when it comes to certain businesses. Making a profit is fine if you make it by selling people stuff they don't need, scamming the gullible, exploiting your workers, and ignoring environmental concerns...but gods help you if you make your profit by providing services *certain people* have issues with. Then profit is THE DEVIL OMG EVILNESS. Can has consistency, please? Is profit an acceptable thing, or is it not? Or is it an acceptable thing when conservatives do it and evidence of immorality and wrongdoing when progressives do it?

If you're truly pro-life, and not just anti-choice, support Planned Parenthood. Because their pregnancy-prevention efforts save a lot more hypothetical babies than any anti-choice moralizing ever could."

...I probably won't change his mind. I don't know about the minds of anyone else on the email list I sent this back to. But...teaspoons.

Black Children an "Endangered Species"

So this is all kinds of full of facepalm. Or facepaw, as the case may be. (Yes, I'm totally going to abuse this graphic. Get used to it.)

An antiabortion group has begun putting up billboards in and around Atlanta that declare "Black children are an endangered species". Via Renee at Womanist Musings, it seems the organization is basing this on the fact that while black women make up 30% of the demographic, they account for 56% of the abortions performed.

The first epic FAIL of this billboard campaign is in their phrasing. Black children are an "endangered species"? Really? Because gods know, it's not like there's a history, stretching back centuries, of African-Americans being framed as animalistic and therefore subhuman to justify white peoples' abuses of them. And it's not like that shit is the distant past, either. When even as recently as 2008 conservatives felt free to make monkey-caricatures of Obama, referring to black children the same way you would refer to some Amazonian tree frog is incredibly problematic. Black children are not some other species. They are not animals. Please do not refer to them as such.

The second epic FAIL is their statistics. Or rather, the fact that they're using those statistics without ever considering some of the potential reasons behind them. Ok, so black women are aborting at a higher rate than their white sistren. Ever wonder why that is? These people think it's a eugenics conspiracy. But consider that the poverty rate for blacks is three times higher than it is for whites (in 2008, 24.7% vs 8.6%, according to the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan). Combine that with the fact that, according to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 3/4 of women obtaining abortions cite inability to afford a child as one of their reasons for aborting, and it might occur to you that black women abort more often because they're much likelier to be unable to afford a kid, hmm? I'll also point out that a third of black children live in poverty, and 60% of women who have abortions are already mothers of at least one child, and again, you might think that these factors point toward socioeconomic reasons for the higher rate of abortions among black women, rather than some evil eugenics conspiracy.

Black women deserve the right to choose when and how they will bear children. Attempting to bully them into having children they can't afford or don't want is a shitty way to deal with the real problem here. The real problem is that our society makes it damn difficult for black women to be successful mothers. There are a whole lot of well-off white people who sniff about "welfare queens" when a black woman chooses to reproduce. Bristol Palin was commended for "doing the right thing", but think about the shaming and censure a 17-year-old black girl would face in the same situation. That's a social disincentive to parenting. Of course there's the economic aspect, with poverty rates being as disproportionately high as they are among black communities in general and for black children in particular. On the day when black women face no greater difficulties in having and raising and supporting children than do white women, yet are still aborting at much higher rates, THEN you can look for evidence of a eugenics conspiracy. Until then, consider working on the REAL issues here by actually supporting black women and their children, and keep the fearmongering and bullying tactics to yourselves.

A Cult I Can Believe In!

The Teabagger Convention is taking place this weekend in Nashville. Whoopdedoo. I hope they enjoy their Freedom Coffee and teabag necklaces.

But the opening speaker said something in his very predictably angry rant on Obama and socialism that I want to focus on for a moment. In his ire over the way liberals are ruining America, he denounced the "cult of multiculturalism".

I'm taking Intro to Sociology this semester, and just this past Wednesday we discussed the concept of multiculturalism. Let me pull out my textbook and see what it says...

Multiculturalism: The coexistence of several cultures in the same geographic area, without any one culture dominating another. (SOC, Nijole V. Benokraitis, 2009-2010 ed, p. 53)

This is somehow a cult? If so, where do I sign up???

Looking at the definition, it becomes easy to see which part of the definition of multiculturalism has teabagger types freaking the fuck out. It's that little caveat, "without any one culture dominating". They are grudgingly willing to let other cultures exist, sort of, sometimes. But their culture must always be the one on top! It's the same mindset that has certain types of Christians screaming persecution anytime a minority faith or the nonreligious manage to pry one of their clenched little fingers off of some position of de facto superiority. In their minds, failure to acknowledge their culture/religion/w'ev as Teh Bestest Evar is tantamount to persecution. It's also the same reason men's rights activists - aka misogynists - whine that feminism is about hurting men. To them, rights and power are a zero-sum game. If someone else gains access to the same rights they have, their rights are diminished by it. Which logically makes no sense, but look at the groups we're talking about here - teabaggers, hard-right Christians, and MRAs. Not the most logical bunch at the best of times.

Listen, you people clinging tightly to your pedestals: I know the idea of being simply normal scares you. I know you don't want to be just one more in the sea. I know you like feeling Super Speshul. But you're fighting a losing battle. Multiculturalism is a horse long done bolted, and here you are slamming the barn door and screaming at it. It's been said of Gavin Newsom's "whether you like it or not!" comment regarding the legalizing of same-sex marriage, that it was impolitic. But it was also true. Equality is coming, whether you like it or not. The only question now is, will you accept the elevation of the formerly oppressed masses to stand freely at your side gracefully? Or will you be dragged kicking and screaming to eventually sulk in a corner, muttering about the good ol' days when all these people knew their place, darnit?

Rights For Me, But Not For Thee

I guess some faiths are more equal than others. (via)

Patrick McCollum is a Wiccan chaplain who has been fighting the California Department of Corrections for the right to serve pagan and Wiccan inmates. His case challenges California's "Five Faiths" policy, a policy of the corrections system that allows chaplains of only five faiths: Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Native American. (Though those five choices are in themselves problematic; it's not like all Native American peoples had the same religion or rituals. That's like saying someone "speaks African". Same goes for lumping all the Protestant denominations together.) Up until now the CDCR has been arguing that McCollum lacked standing to bring the case, as he is not himself an inmate. But just recently it's come out that their real argument is something a little different - and a lot more offensive.

Lawyers for the CDCR are claiming a 2-tier system of religious rights: that "traditional" faiths such as the five mentioned above are first-tier faiths, and as such are meant to receive full rights and protections under the Constitution, and that other faiths, like Wicca, are second-tier faiths, not entitled to the same protections. Which is bad enough, really. Wasn't the whole point of the separation of church and state that the government wouldn't be making decisions like which religions are good and which ones are bad?

But here's where it gets fun. The other day, an amicus brief was filed in the McCollum v CDCR case on behalf of WallBuilders, a Christian Dominionist organization, claiming that not only should we be second-tier faiths, our religion does not even count as a religion under the Constitution. From the WallBuilders brief (pdf):

The problem is that everything they [Interfaith Community Representatives, in their own amicus brief on McCollum's side] write explains why witchcraft and paganism are religions as the term is currently used in non-legal circles; nothing they write addresses whether witchcraft and paganism are religions as that word was used by the Framers in drafting the Religion Clauses. Thus, Amici can quote all the Founders they want for the proposition that various religions and faiths must be treated neutrally, but they will have accomplished nothing unless they demonstrate that paganism and witchcraft were included within the word “religion” as used in the Religion Clauses.

So because we weren't recognized as a religion 200-some years ago, we aren't allowed to be recognized as a religion now? That makes about as much sense as trying to run a modern society on the social mores of Bronze Age tribal societies! ...Wait. Christian Dominionists. I forgot who I was talking about here.

All I can say is, feel free to restrict minority faiths at your own peril. Because you don't know the future; Christians might one day be the minority faith, and at that point, precedent will have been set that the government DOES have the right to choose which faiths are deserving of protection and equality.

Christian Dominionists Have Hurt Fee-fees Over Inclusion Of Pagan Faiths; In Other News, Water Still Wet

I am reminded of a song/chant/thingy that my high school marching band used to do on band trips. (Yes, I was a band geek. Shush.) I don't remember how it goes, but I do remember that we chanted it the first time at a whisper, and at the end of the verse the person leading would say "Second verse, same as the first - a little bit louder and a little bit worse!" and we would do so, over and over until we were all screaming it at the top of our lungs.

Because this? This whole "Ignore the desecration of a religious minority's worship space by Christians - WE'RE the persecuted ones here!" attitude is incredibly familiar, and incredibly annoying. Also, Bill Donahue needs to STFU already.

So the story goes like this: The Air Force Academy has recently created a worship area for its pagan students; a stone ring near the student living areas, scheduled for dedication in March. Yay, inclusion of a minority faith and accommodation for those students who practice it! Except it seems some Christian students took exception to pagan students having a place to worship, because someone nailed together a cross out of railroad ties and left it in the circle. I suppose I should pause here to say, I'm actually glad it was something so easy to remove, as opposed to a cross burnt in the grass or painted on the rocks. Anyway. The administration at the Academy is taking this seriously, and treating it as the act of desecration it is. Let me be absolutely clear about this: it is hate speech. Putting a large version of the holy symbol of a dominant faith which has historically been rather hostile towards this minority faith, in the worship area of the minority faith, is an act intended to violate the safe space that a place of worship should be. It is a very clear statement of "You Are Not Welcome Here"; it is an attempt to bully members of a minority group. The Academy's administration seems to get that, with one spokesperson likening it to finding graffiti on the Student Chapel. So, while the incident itself is fucked up, at least it's getting serious attention from the Powers That Be.

And then I, like the glutton for punishment I am, clicked through to LifeSiteNews and read their coverage of the incident. *facepalm* Here, share my pain:

The Air Force Academy has defended its policy to make a place for witchcraft on its campus as an expression of its commitment to cadet’s freedom of religion. However, critics have replied that the move represents a further rejection of the United States’ Judeo-Christian heritage, and makes little sense given that the numbers of actual neo-pagans at the Academy is miniscule compared to other followers of non-Christian faiths, such as Islam.

Oh noes! We're permitting other faiths to worship openly! This means we are rejecting our (questionable) Judeo-Christian heritage! ...wait, what's wrong with that? If such a heritage exists at all in the sense that these people mean it (Amurika is a Christian Nation!), which is a shaky proposition at best and an outright lie at worst, I see nothing wrong with moving away from that in favor of the kind of multicultural approach that reflects the tolerance, equality, and freedom we as a nation claim to espouse. Also, I'm curious about something. They seem to think that there aren't enough pagans to make dedicating a circle for us "make sense". So, at what threshold are there enough members of a faith to merit a place of worship? If we constitute 5% of the population? 10%? 25%? Or is it number of bodies? Are ten regular attendees enough? 20? 50? Why does that honestly matter?

But Catholic League President Bill Donahue decried the reaction from Academy officials as “boilerplate” and stated that they were going way too far by treating the incident as “hate speech.” Donahue stated that if he found another religious symbol placed at a Catholic site, he would complain.

So in the same breath that he says people are overreacting, geez, relax, it's just a giant wooden cross in your circle, what's the big problem here? he also says that if he were in the exact same position, he would complain? How in the hell does that make sense? Listen, boyo, if you reserve the right to complain if someone else left their holy symbol in your church, we get that same right. Cope.

But here's the best part. Referring to the comparison of the cross in the circle to graffiti on the chapel, Donahue decided to air his hurt fee-fees:

“These remarks have added to the chilling atmosphere that Catholics and Protestants must endure,” said Donahue. He added that he was going to take the matter to the members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee, just as he had done in 2005.

“We need to know why hypersensitivity to non-Christians has evolved into insensitivity to Christians.”

Oh, for fuck's sake. "Chilling atmosphere"? Really? I guess if you believe it is your inalienable right to a position of constant religious superiority, to never be exposed to those *other* religions, to be treated as the One True Faith For Everybody Everywhere, it's chilling to see someone treating pagan religious spaces like they're as worth defending as your chapel. But guess what? Those are not your rights. Your rights are the same as ours, asshole. You have the right to worship in peace. You have the right not to be proselytized at if you do not want to be. You do not have the right to deny others the ability to worship in peace, nor do you have the right to insist that they prioritize your religion above all others.

And as to this alleged insensitivity to Christians...yeah. Let me tell you about the prayers I heard as part of official military ceremonies when I attended, as extended heart-family to a Lieutenant of the Army National Guard. The prayers which specifically referenced God the Father and His Son. I remember gritting my teeth when everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof, was expected to stand and bow their heads in prayer together. I did it, because I did not want my behavior to reflect poorly on the person on whose behalf I was attending. But let me tell you about insensitivity to one's faith, Mr. Donahue. The simple accommodation of my faith within military ranks is vehemently not by its very existence "insensitive" to your faith. It's time you, and other Dominionists like you, learned to fucking coexist already. WITHOUT whining about how it makes you sad to have to share the world with us icky non-Christians.

The Bush Era Continues To Fade...

Some good news today! Back in the Bush era, emergency contraception (aka Plan B, the morning after pill) was not available in overseas military pharmacies. The women who were putting their lives on the line for us did not have the same access to EC that their civilian counterparts at home do. I can walk into any pharmacy and buy myself EC if the condom breaks or if I am raped. A soldier overseas could not do the same in the same situations. (And given that a female soldier in Iraq is more likely to be raped by her fellow soldiers than killed by enemy fire, they really and truly *need* that access.)

But the DoD has just announced that they're reversing the Bush-era policy and recommending that EC be stocked on our bases overseas, available to our female soldiers when they need it. Yay!

It's nice to see something go right for a change.

Verdict: Guilty

Scott Roeder, who murdered abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in Kansas last year, was found guilty of first-degree murder this morning after only 37 minutes of deliberation.

Good. Fucking. Riddance. May he rot in prison for the rest of his miserable life, and may his spirit find justice in the afterlife, in whatever form that may take. If there's a hell, may he burn in it.

Pro-LIFE, my womanly ass.

NIMBY

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.