Baby Be-Bop had to go back to its home at the library, so while I was there, guess what I picked up?
American Gods, by Neil Gaiman
Not yet targeted by West Bend or the oxymoronically-named Christian Civil Liberties Union, but probably only because they either haven't read it or it just induced heart attack and/or stroke immediately. Or so I've heard; obviously I haven't read it yet.
You know what the problem with people like West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries and the CCLU is?
... Wait. There's not enough blog space in the world to answer that.
You know what one of the many problems with people like that is? They think God is an asshole.
Seriously, listen to them. They believe in a god makes 3% to 10% of the population gay, then wigs the hell out that gay people exist, and sends them all hell because they have the gall to exist in the way he made them. What an asshole.
The thing is, I don't see the point of trying to score brownie points with an asshole god. I mean, let's take this Baby Be-bop thing. Up until sometime last year, the library branch I borrowed Baby Be-Bop from stamped the due date on a sticker on the back of the book. I don't know when exactly they changed, but I know it was after early Jan 2008 because that's the last date stamped here on American Gods.
When I checked out Baby Be-Bop, it still had the old sticker on it. Which told me it had been checked out once in late 1995 (probably off the New Book shelf), once in 1996, then not again until 2000, and then not again until 2004, and that was the last one. It wasn't exactly flying off the shelf, now was it?
Then these people step up and make a big furry deal about it to Protect Teh Childrenz and Do The Will Of God or some crap. So now it's in the news and there's a good chance the ALA will feature it for Banned Books Week and tons of people who never would have heard of the book have now heard of it, and a lot of them are like me and want to read it to see what the BFD is. I know several people who are specifically reading it because of this kerfluffle.
From their standpoint, this has got to be what is generally known as a Fail.
Can you imagine them in the afterlife going up to Asshole God?
Nutjobs: "But Asshole God, we were trying to keep people from reading this horrible sinful book."
AG: "That's nice, but you FAILED! Spectacularly! Three times as many people read it because of you making a big deal out of it than would have if you'd just kept your mouths shut. And I'm an Asshole, so no brownie points for intention. WHOMP! No heaven for you!"
Besides, let's be honest for a second. They're doing it for the attention. If they just wanted the book out of the library, well, there are quieter ways to do it of varying levels of legality.
I seem to remember there being something in the Bible about doing religious stuff for the purpose of getting attention. What was that? Ah, yes, I think I remember. It was DON'T FUCKING DO IT.
I've never seen the point of believing in an asshole god. No matter how hard I try, I will never be able to meet the standards of an asshole god. That's why I prefer to believe in a friendlier God. Besides, the way I figure it, if I'm wrong, I'm going to hell one way or another, and I like to think it'd be a little less hellish if I knew I was there for believing that God was actually a nice, loving deity. I much rather be there for believing God is good, than for trying to burn a book like Baby Be-Bop.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, June 19, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Book: Baby Be-Bop
Yesterday I finished reading the book Baby Be-Bop, by Francesca Lia Block. This book came to my attention thanks to the West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, and more specifically to the Christian Civil Liberties Union, who are suing for the right to burn or otherwise destroy the West Bend Community Memorial Library's copy of it. They describe it as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and anti-Christian".
Generally speaking, I find if something pisses off the Christ-i-ain'ts this much, it's worth a read.
To quote this article from the ALA, "“the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”"
So, as I was reading, I marked points I noticed that included the 'n' word and derogatory sexual and political epithets.
On page 16, Pup is admiring Dirk's portrait of Jimi Hendrix and says ' "My mom went out with this gross trucker guy once," Pup told him. "He saw the Jimi poster in my room and goes, 'That nigger looks like he's got a mouth full of cum.' I wanted to kill him. I told my mom I would if she didn't stop seeing him."
On page 42, a cameo character says "If you ask me all those fags are going to die out."
On page 45, Dirk calls a boy with a swastika tattooed on his neck a "fascist skinhead", and on the same page the skinhead called him a "faggot".
I think that's it. An insult in dialog may have slipped by me, but if so I feel quite certain in saying it's in the same vein as the others.
The "vulgar" complaint I can understand, knowing the very strict definition of vulgar these sorts of groups have. There is some cursing, and there are mentions of sex. Nothing very explicit, but you know, sex exists.
Racial I don't get at all. Honestly, 'racial'? What does that even mean? My dictionary says "of, relating to, or based on race; occurring between races." Is this supposed to be good? Bad? Indifferent? In any event, it doesn't apply, because everyone in the book is white. It's actually kind of funny how white the book is. Well, I guess technically Dirk's great-grandfather may have been Middle Eastern. (OMG! Miscegenation!) They mention Martin Luther King Jr's assassination as Uber Bad Thing a couple of times.
Racial. Hmm.
And of course anti-Christian only in the sense of "not blatantly fundamentalist Christian". Is it just me, or at this point does that almost go without saying? When was the last time you saw/read/experience something that was accused of being "anti-Christian" and that actually was by any reasonable definition? Or even if you squint? Somehow to these groups, if it doesn't say all Christians everywhere are perfect and wonderful and covered with rainbows and kittens, it is "anti-Christian". And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.
Right now, the statement that "Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”" amuses me because it's so... lawyerly. Technically it's correct. In the wrong circumstances, being called a skinhead or a faggot can incite violence and/or put someone's life in danger. The book isn't inciting violence or danger, but the statement doesn't say that it is. I wonder if the actual legal document is phrased that way.
In the meantime, I'm just going to close my eyes and imagine the grand jury called together to determine if the book is obscene and if making it available should be a hate crime. I'm imagining those people reading the book, and then beating all four plaintiffs and especially their lawyer about the head and shoulders with it for wasting their time with such stupid, even ludicrous, complaints. But then thanking them for the reading recommendation.
Ahh....
Now, on to my opinions of the book itself. Now, given how I learned about it, naturally I have not read any other of the Dangerous Angels series nor was I actually aware that it was part of a series when I started. I'm coming at it completely cold, viewing it as a stand-alone.
Frankly, I think this book was wonderful. I'm tempted to buy myself a copy, and it is very rare for me to reread fiction, so I think this is saying something.
It is about a young man coming to terms with his homosexuality in the late 1970s/early 1980s, but it is also about people and their stories. How everyone has a story, and how freeing it is to share a story and how destructive it is to silence a story. If you'll allow me to quote a passage:
"Think about the word destroy. Do you know what it is? De-story. Destroy. Destory. You see. And restore. That's re-story. Do you know that only two things have been proven to help survivors of the Holocaust? Massage is one. Telling their story is another. Being touched and touching. Telling your story is touching. It sets you free."
Doesn't that make the request to destroy this book all the more sad, and all the more ironic?
I was warned going in that the author had a "twee writing style". I'll admit that my reaction was "what does that even mean?" Then I started and oh, that's a twee writing style.
The start of the book is written in the way you'd expect a book for beginning, elementary-age readers to be, even though the intended audience is older. Very simple, short sentences, very concrete. But it doesn't stay that way. The storytelling subtly changes with the events of the story. At first, it's reflecting Dirk's life. It's very black and white, there's no depth to it, "There's something wrong with me; I want to be normal, and if I can't have that, I want to die." Later during dream sequences it gets more flowery and symbolic; it changes depending on the character in the focus. Then at the end the style is more down to earth, but more grown up. It isn't the choppy simple elementary-school style any more.
I thought that was very stylish.
It's a character driven story, and the characters were great. It's a very short book (just over 100 pages), so it's very pared down, but I still found them very believable. I could really feel for Dirk, really experience what he was going through. I do wish Just Silver had gotten to share her story, but I guess you can't have everything.
So, in summary, my opinion: Go read it. Now. Close the browser and go to your local library or bookstore and get a copy. Reading it is an excellent use of two hours of your life.
But, however tempting it may be, don't actually use it to beat a bigot about the head and shoulders when you're done. It's too good of a book for that.
Generally speaking, I find if something pisses off the Christ-i-ain'ts this much, it's worth a read.
To quote this article from the ALA, "“the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”"
So, as I was reading, I marked points I noticed that included the 'n' word and derogatory sexual and political epithets.
On page 16, Pup is admiring Dirk's portrait of Jimi Hendrix and says ' "My mom went out with this gross trucker guy once," Pup told him. "He saw the Jimi poster in my room and goes, 'That nigger looks like he's got a mouth full of cum.' I wanted to kill him. I told my mom I would if she didn't stop seeing him."
On page 42, a cameo character says "If you ask me all those fags are going to die out."
On page 45, Dirk calls a boy with a swastika tattooed on his neck a "fascist skinhead", and on the same page the skinhead called him a "faggot".
I think that's it. An insult in dialog may have slipped by me, but if so I feel quite certain in saying it's in the same vein as the others.
The "vulgar" complaint I can understand, knowing the very strict definition of vulgar these sorts of groups have. There is some cursing, and there are mentions of sex. Nothing very explicit, but you know, sex exists.
Racial I don't get at all. Honestly, 'racial'? What does that even mean? My dictionary says "of, relating to, or based on race; occurring between races." Is this supposed to be good? Bad? Indifferent? In any event, it doesn't apply, because everyone in the book is white. It's actually kind of funny how white the book is. Well, I guess technically Dirk's great-grandfather may have been Middle Eastern. (OMG! Miscegenation!) They mention Martin Luther King Jr's assassination as Uber Bad Thing a couple of times.
Racial. Hmm.
And of course anti-Christian only in the sense of "not blatantly fundamentalist Christian". Is it just me, or at this point does that almost go without saying? When was the last time you saw/read/experience something that was accused of being "anti-Christian" and that actually was by any reasonable definition? Or even if you squint? Somehow to these groups, if it doesn't say all Christians everywhere are perfect and wonderful and covered with rainbows and kittens, it is "anti-Christian". And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.
Right now, the statement that "Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”" amuses me because it's so... lawyerly. Technically it's correct. In the wrong circumstances, being called a skinhead or a faggot can incite violence and/or put someone's life in danger. The book isn't inciting violence or danger, but the statement doesn't say that it is. I wonder if the actual legal document is phrased that way.
In the meantime, I'm just going to close my eyes and imagine the grand jury called together to determine if the book is obscene and if making it available should be a hate crime. I'm imagining those people reading the book, and then beating all four plaintiffs and especially their lawyer about the head and shoulders with it for wasting their time with such stupid, even ludicrous, complaints. But then thanking them for the reading recommendation.
Ahh....
Now, on to my opinions of the book itself. Now, given how I learned about it, naturally I have not read any other of the Dangerous Angels series nor was I actually aware that it was part of a series when I started. I'm coming at it completely cold, viewing it as a stand-alone.
Frankly, I think this book was wonderful. I'm tempted to buy myself a copy, and it is very rare for me to reread fiction, so I think this is saying something.
It is about a young man coming to terms with his homosexuality in the late 1970s/early 1980s, but it is also about people and their stories. How everyone has a story, and how freeing it is to share a story and how destructive it is to silence a story. If you'll allow me to quote a passage:
"Think about the word destroy. Do you know what it is? De-story. Destroy. Destory. You see. And restore. That's re-story. Do you know that only two things have been proven to help survivors of the Holocaust? Massage is one. Telling their story is another. Being touched and touching. Telling your story is touching. It sets you free."
Doesn't that make the request to destroy this book all the more sad, and all the more ironic?
I was warned going in that the author had a "twee writing style". I'll admit that my reaction was "what does that even mean?" Then I started and oh, that's a twee writing style.
The start of the book is written in the way you'd expect a book for beginning, elementary-age readers to be, even though the intended audience is older. Very simple, short sentences, very concrete. But it doesn't stay that way. The storytelling subtly changes with the events of the story. At first, it's reflecting Dirk's life. It's very black and white, there's no depth to it, "There's something wrong with me; I want to be normal, and if I can't have that, I want to die." Later during dream sequences it gets more flowery and symbolic; it changes depending on the character in the focus. Then at the end the style is more down to earth, but more grown up. It isn't the choppy simple elementary-school style any more.
I thought that was very stylish.
It's a character driven story, and the characters were great. It's a very short book (just over 100 pages), so it's very pared down, but I still found them very believable. I could really feel for Dirk, really experience what he was going through. I do wish Just Silver had gotten to share her story, but I guess you can't have everything.
So, in summary, my opinion: Go read it. Now. Close the browser and go to your local library or bookstore and get a copy. Reading it is an excellent use of two hours of your life.
But, however tempting it may be, don't actually use it to beat a bigot about the head and shoulders when you're done. It's too good of a book for that.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Oh God, it's starting early.
"Some people don't celebrate Christmas and they won't even pretend! This oppresses me! Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
*head desk*
I did have the amusing realization that from right now until New Years, for some pagans, Nietzsche is right. God is dead. ^_~
*head desk*
I did have the amusing realization that from right now until New Years, for some pagans, Nietzsche is right. God is dead. ^_~
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Keep your proselytizing to yourself.
I know, you can't really keep your proselytizing to yourself, or else it's not proselytizing. Of course, that's my point. In any event, the particular incident I'm about to get into isn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things by itself. However, it is a scenario I've seen played out a hundred times. Those kind of numbers make it a big deal as a collective, and like many people, I'm really getting sick of it.
So, in August, I joined a mystery stole knit-along that started at the beginning of September. I was having a hard time and needed to pamper myself. I spent quite a bit on yarn and needles and beads for it, started it with everyone else -- over 5000 people across at least 24 counties -- and... Well, I haven't been able to keep up. At all. Six weeks in, I'm just now on the second week's work. When Clue 4 was released and I saw the stoles of those keeping up , I wasn't so thrilled with the design. When at Clue 5 she also released the "theme" of the stole, which turned out to be "I was farting around with design", I was even less impressed. I thought I'd be doing something with some meaning or point, even if it was along the lines of "Swan Lake" or "Scheherazade" like the previous Mystery Knit-alongs. I wouldn't have volunteered to test knit someone's doodlings.
I state all this only so you don't think my final reaction was solely the result of the controversy, or that it is only bitter grapes.
Anyway, I'd already put in this time and money into the stole, so I figured I'd keep going. Then Clue 6, the final one, came out. Beforehand, the designer had said that when she released the final pattern for sale, not only would it be at a reduced price for knit-along participants, but it would include a bonus pattern. So, I'm skimming quickly through the clue file, and I see something about a surprise. Thinking about the bonus pattern, I read closer, and:
I would not have participated in this knit-along if I'd known it would end in some proselytizing, and I really get sick of this hypocritical crap from certain Christians. (I will be unpacking the phrase "hypocritical crap" in a little bit. Please hang with me.)
I did resolve not to do any more patterns by Georgina Logsdon, but this was not enough to stop me dead in my knitting tracks. What did stop me was the reactions to people protesting being proselytized to. There was a lot of variation of the words "shut the hell up", and of course majority privilege whining. In fact, let me just go through some of the typical ones.
First, from the designer:
I do this in all my designs. Oh, so you already knew how offensivee it would be to so many of your participants, and you just didn't give a damn. Lovely.
On top of that, how are those of us knitting one of your designs for the first time to know you're going to use this as an excuse to proselytize to us?
My best friend is Jewish. Uh huh. Yeah. This figures in how?
And it gets even worse from fans.
She gave this for free, so shut up you ingrate. Not exactly. We are all test-knitting for Georgina before she releases the pattern for sale. Granted, it's not a normal test-knit set-up. There's a lot more knitters on one hand, but on the other we're not getting a final copy for free. Oh, and a condition snuck in at the last minute is that we all have to put up with being proselytized to!
She did something nice, but that entitles her to "thanks for the pattern", not to worship, and not to a chance for proselytizing.
Stop looking for offense. Sometimes phrased with personal insults. Right, 'cause it's our fault and there'd be no problem except for us pesky not-rabid-Christians. *eye roll*
It's just an expression of the designer's religion. It has nothing to do with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pattern, either. Guys, I am being generous when I assume that out-of-nowhere 'summary of my great religion that implies death and/or destruction if you don't believe in it too" quote is proselytizing. Because if it isn't, then that thing Georgina did? Jesus specifically said not to do that. That's praying on street corners, and with all the bigoted ego-stroking triggered by this, I'd guess Georgina does already have her reward. (Hypocritical crap. Jesus said not to wear your religion on your sleeve, so if you're wearing your Christianity on your sleeve, that's hypocritical crap.)
And my personal favorite:
Oh noes, Christians are getting picked on so bad again. An exact quote, if I may: "I suspect many people that are offended by a Christian quote would be thrilled to have a quote from another large religion."
If it was one with an implication of death or damnation if I didn't believe in that other large religion, yes, I would be offended by that quote.
If the quote were more innocent, it would be less offensive, but there would still be another important difference. Most religions aren't proselytizing. Seriously, let's list off proselytizing religions. There's Christianity and its offshoots (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). There's Islam. There's Souka Gakkai. There's... Nope, that's all I know about. There's probably a few others, but there's also a lot that don't. When's the last time a Hindu proselytized to you? You ever have a Jew hand you a Torah? Of the religions that do proselytize, Souka Gakkai is considered kinda nutty (ironically for techniques that sound an awful lot like my Christian missionary coworker). Islam scares the crap out of Christians when they proselytize, and on top of that at least has codified respect for Judiasm and Christianity. (Not always followed, but it is in their book.)
Christianity, on the other hand, is infamous for not playing nice with others. China kicked Christianity out of the country for it. Japan had a 200 year policy of executing foreigners who washed up on shore because of it. Christianity thinks everyone else needs to either convert or die. Almost as soon as it left Jesus' hands, it placed itself in a superior, if sometimes martyred, position to others. Christianity has no tradition of respect for others' beliefs. Which puts it and Souka Gakkai in a class all by themselves.
This is what it really all gets back to: respect for others. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, and especially when a religion is in the majority, proselytization is the destruction of others' belief systems. Adding this quote to the pattern out of nowhere, with no tie to the design, is disrespectful of the participants who do not share Georgina's beliefs. And telling them to stuff their protests is even more so.
As for me and the stole, I seriously think I'm going to frog it and use the yarn for something else, maybe a Juno Regina. I wasn't terribly fond of the design to start with, and the level of insult and disrespect towards non-Christians has really turned me off. I hate to spend several more months working on something with so much negativity and end up with something I might not even wear. I'll put it away for now until I finish another lace project I had started, and then see how I feel.
(Comments are disabled to prevent trolling.)
So, in August, I joined a mystery stole knit-along that started at the beginning of September. I was having a hard time and needed to pamper myself. I spent quite a bit on yarn and needles and beads for it, started it with everyone else -- over 5000 people across at least 24 counties -- and... Well, I haven't been able to keep up. At all. Six weeks in, I'm just now on the second week's work. When Clue 4 was released and I saw the stoles of those keeping up , I wasn't so thrilled with the design. When at Clue 5 she also released the "theme" of the stole, which turned out to be "I was farting around with design", I was even less impressed. I thought I'd be doing something with some meaning or point, even if it was along the lines of "Swan Lake" or "Scheherazade" like the previous Mystery Knit-alongs. I wouldn't have volunteered to test knit someone's doodlings.
I state all this only so you don't think my final reaction was solely the result of the controversy, or that it is only bitter grapes.
Anyway, I'd already put in this time and money into the stole, so I figured I'd keep going. Then Clue 6, the final one, came out. Beforehand, the designer had said that when she released the final pattern for sale, not only would it be at a reduced price for knit-along participants, but it would include a bonus pattern. So, I'm skimming quickly through the clue file, and I see something about a surprise. Thinking about the bonus pattern, I read closer, and:
"The most unexpected happy surprise is stated in John 3:16As someone else phrased it, that really took the wind out of my sails. I was not aware that a condition of participating in this knit-along was giving the designer a chance to proselytize to me. I am not on good terms with the Christian religion. I would technically be considered a Christian (I prefer the older term "Follower of the Way"), and I do go to church, but you have to understand that's a UCC with a congregation of about 12 people, where a sermon about the parable of the vineyard owner trying to collect his profits from workers who don't want to hand them over starts with "this passage has been used to justify so much anti-Semeticism. But there's so many different ways to interpret it. Who says God is the absentee landlord?" and then we discuss slumlords and mistreatment of the working poor.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
I would not have participated in this knit-along if I'd known it would end in some proselytizing, and I really get sick of this hypocritical crap from certain Christians. (I will be unpacking the phrase "hypocritical crap" in a little bit. Please hang with me.)
I did resolve not to do any more patterns by Georgina Logsdon, but this was not enough to stop me dead in my knitting tracks. What did stop me was the reactions to people protesting being proselytized to. There was a lot of variation of the words "shut the hell up", and of course majority privilege whining. In fact, let me just go through some of the typical ones.
First, from the designer:
I do this in all my designs. Oh, so you already knew how offensivee it would be to so many of your participants, and you just didn't give a damn. Lovely.
On top of that, how are those of us knitting one of your designs for the first time to know you're going to use this as an excuse to proselytize to us?
My best friend is Jewish. Uh huh. Yeah. This figures in how?
And it gets even worse from fans.
She gave this for free, so shut up you ingrate. Not exactly. We are all test-knitting for Georgina before she releases the pattern for sale. Granted, it's not a normal test-knit set-up. There's a lot more knitters on one hand, but on the other we're not getting a final copy for free. Oh, and a condition snuck in at the last minute is that we all have to put up with being proselytized to!
She did something nice, but that entitles her to "thanks for the pattern", not to worship, and not to a chance for proselytizing.
Stop looking for offense. Sometimes phrased with personal insults. Right, 'cause it's our fault and there'd be no problem except for us pesky not-rabid-Christians. *eye roll*
It's just an expression of the designer's religion. It has nothing to do with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pattern, either. Guys, I am being generous when I assume that out-of-nowhere 'summary of my great religion that implies death and/or destruction if you don't believe in it too" quote is proselytizing. Because if it isn't, then that thing Georgina did? Jesus specifically said not to do that. That's praying on street corners, and with all the bigoted ego-stroking triggered by this, I'd guess Georgina does already have her reward. (Hypocritical crap. Jesus said not to wear your religion on your sleeve, so if you're wearing your Christianity on your sleeve, that's hypocritical crap.)
And my personal favorite:
Oh noes, Christians are getting picked on so bad again. An exact quote, if I may: "I suspect many people that are offended by a Christian quote would be thrilled to have a quote from another large religion."
If it was one with an implication of death or damnation if I didn't believe in that other large religion, yes, I would be offended by that quote.
If the quote were more innocent, it would be less offensive, but there would still be another important difference. Most religions aren't proselytizing. Seriously, let's list off proselytizing religions. There's Christianity and its offshoots (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). There's Islam. There's Souka Gakkai. There's... Nope, that's all I know about. There's probably a few others, but there's also a lot that don't. When's the last time a Hindu proselytized to you? You ever have a Jew hand you a Torah? Of the religions that do proselytize, Souka Gakkai is considered kinda nutty (ironically for techniques that sound an awful lot like my Christian missionary coworker). Islam scares the crap out of Christians when they proselytize, and on top of that at least has codified respect for Judiasm and Christianity. (Not always followed, but it is in their book.)
Christianity, on the other hand, is infamous for not playing nice with others. China kicked Christianity out of the country for it. Japan had a 200 year policy of executing foreigners who washed up on shore because of it. Christianity thinks everyone else needs to either convert or die. Almost as soon as it left Jesus' hands, it placed itself in a superior, if sometimes martyred, position to others. Christianity has no tradition of respect for others' beliefs. Which puts it and Souka Gakkai in a class all by themselves.
This is what it really all gets back to: respect for others. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, and especially when a religion is in the majority, proselytization is the destruction of others' belief systems. Adding this quote to the pattern out of nowhere, with no tie to the design, is disrespectful of the participants who do not share Georgina's beliefs. And telling them to stuff their protests is even more so.
As for me and the stole, I seriously think I'm going to frog it and use the yarn for something else, maybe a Juno Regina. I wasn't terribly fond of the design to start with, and the level of insult and disrespect towards non-Christians has really turned me off. I hate to spend several more months working on something with so much negativity and end up with something I might not even wear. I'll put it away for now until I finish another lace project I had started, and then see how I feel.
(Comments are disabled to prevent trolling.)
Friday, May 16, 2008
Atheist writers
I am about ready to toss in the towel looking for a good, open-minded, inclusively leaning atheist writer. My atheist friends, I really feel for you. It's not enough that you guys face major discrimination, that a majority of American voters wouldn't vote for an atheist candidate, you have to put up with this weird Freudian projection thing from opponents, that... Well, you know the laundry list better than I do. But on top of that, the representatives who get the major air time are... Well, it's about like if I were judged on the basis of Fred Phelps, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. (Never trust an evangelist named Pat.)
The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.
Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.
Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.
I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.
Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.
OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.
Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.
Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.
Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?
Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)
I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.
The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.
Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.
Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.
I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.
Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.
OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.
Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.
Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.
Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?
Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)
I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Zealots ruin everything.
During my last chain store visit, I was frustrated to discover that prayer shawls are going the way of the WWJD bracelet: something that had good meaning and intention when it was limited to a small group who believed in it, moved into yet another brainwashing technique, and is now on its way to becoming meaningless commercial fluff.
I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.
Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.
In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.
Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.
Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.
I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.
Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.
In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.
Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.
Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Duelling Billboards!
OK, this is just fun: Duelling with the "God Speaks" billboards.
Now, I will admit that I had a "That 'love that neighbor' thing? I mean that." T-shirt, and loved it. Was very sad when the cotton wore out, and I'd happily get another. (Was even sadder when my "Love 'em all, let God sort 'em out" shirt wore out, because they're not made any more. :( ) I like the shot at the way the more important tenants of Christianity have been ignored in favor of trivial, superceded, and hate-mongering ones.
And I find a lot of the Godspeaks stuff fairly innocuous.
But then they ran out of good ones, and started getting annoying and insulting. Like, say, the "Big Bang theory? You've gotta be kiddin' me" one. Good way to take already non-Universal statements, narrow the fuck out of them, and make them insulting to those outside the circle. Do you really think that's going to encourage people to join your side?
Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy smack-down. I did. :)
Now, I will admit that I had a "That 'love that neighbor' thing? I mean that." T-shirt, and loved it. Was very sad when the cotton wore out, and I'd happily get another. (Was even sadder when my "Love 'em all, let God sort 'em out" shirt wore out, because they're not made any more. :( ) I like the shot at the way the more important tenants of Christianity have been ignored in favor of trivial, superceded, and hate-mongering ones.
And I find a lot of the Godspeaks stuff fairly innocuous.
But then they ran out of good ones, and started getting annoying and insulting. Like, say, the "Big Bang theory? You've gotta be kiddin' me" one. Good way to take already non-Universal statements, narrow the fuck out of them, and make them insulting to those outside the circle. Do you really think that's going to encourage people to join your side?
Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy smack-down. I did. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)