A Plea to My LDS and Religious Friends... Put Your Children Before Your Faith!

I am going to broach a sensitive topic here.

I read a thread on LDS.net that has really troubled me.  I am going to paste the young woman's original post here.  This young lady's plea breaks my heart. Her suffering is obvious and needless. I am so disturbed by this girl suffering it has me on the edge of tears. The tragedy here is her religion will likely destroy her when in reality she has done nothing that is abnormal and to call it sinful shows the depraved nature of piety.

I have a rather sensitive topic that I would like advice on. I have been looking on this site, and other people have posted similar topics. If this is not appropriate then I will remove.

I am a girl, and I have a problem with Masturbation. I have been working with my Bishop, for almost 7 months and have not made a lot of progress. He is starting to get frustrated with me.

I've had an issue for around 4 years. I have read a lot of materials that are pornographic in nature(have not looked at visual much) and that is the reason, as well as a coping method.

This is the only sin in this manner that I have committed, I have not done anything with anyone. I am not very good at self-control and that is part of it as well.

I'm home schooled and do not have siblings living at home. I live in a fairly isolated area, and besides Seminary, I don't really have a lot of interaction with people besides my parents.

My parents have major issues in their marriage, there is not a lot of respect on either party's part, and they fight a lot of the time, really ripping into each other. It's not a very healthy environment for me and I get pushed and need to escape.

My bishop is fairly new, only being in the office for 9 months or so. He is also my families home teacher. I reported to him on a daily basis for 5 months, and have now gone to a weekly basis, with an extra report if I mess up. I meet with him around every 2-3 weeks for 15 minutes generally.

Before I started working with him, I had a problem about every day, every other day. The longest I went in the 3 1/2 years was a week without doing it. I read a lot of bad books during that time period.

Now, I can go 1-3 weeks. The longest I was able to go was 4 1/2 weeks, at which point I had an issue. I was making some progress until about the end of August, and then I started messing up more, but not back to where I was. I started listening to music that was a bit suggestive as well as reading things that were as well. I started backsliding big time.

I've now cut out the suggestive material 99%. I've been pretty clean on it for 2 weeks, but there were issues during that time anyway. When I am sick, or having my period, I would use this to distract, or in the case of cramps, it did actually help. I have times of the month when I'm a lot more likely to do it, so it depends.

When I started working with him, I made a lot more of an effort and then, well, I'm not. I'm not sure quite how to get back to the point of actually wanting to stop. My problem is that I also need some other type of outlet I can do to distract myself as a replacement.

I suffer from depression, worse some times and not quite as bad others. I've been suicidal and I still consider it sometimes.

At this point I am not taking the sacrament. My dad is like "Ok, it's time, you need to be done" but what I don't think he realizes is that for me it is an addiction and it's very hard to stop or want to stop. My goal is to go to college next year, so I am limited time wise.

With my bishop as far as he is concerned. He is a really decent man, and I have a lot of respect for him. Overall he has been very patient and understanding but it's been 7 months and no difference, or not much. He wants me to see a counselor and has brought it up in email 4 times as well as 1 time in a meeting.

I've told him no and he finally stopped talking about it after I asked him to. Is it needed for me to meet with him more often? This sunday will be the 3rd week and as far as I know I'm not meeting with him. He was out of town, so that's part of it.

How much should I expect from him, and what can I do so I can make progress? I have been reading a lot of church books, fasting once a week, and also sitting in the Temple Foyer for several hours while my Dad does work. I am making an effort but it's just not good enough it seems.

The problem here is she needs professional help.  She needs it from an unbiased counselor who will treat her as an individual not a member of the faith.  To be fair help has been suggested by her bishop; but, she needs counseling for depression not masturbation.  The girl is in an impossible situation.  She has no voice of reason in her circle of influence.  Her parents' marriage is not healthy.  The child his home schooled and segregated from her peers.  She is caught in vicious and needless cycle guilt, repentance, denial and self loathing.  This cycle could be broken by on adult in her sphere telling her, 'What you are doing is normal and is nobody's business but yours.'

I know your faith is important to you; but, there is a problem when the faith is deemed more important than the child.  My plea is: if you are doing this to your child... please stop.  There is plenty of evidence indicating masturbation is a normal part of development.  It is healthy and serves a purpose.  This uninspired policy stance will destroy this young lady.  It has already destroyed many children before her.  To ask children to deny their humanity in this manner is equal to making using the toilet a sin.  It is a normal body function that hurts no one

In this case religious leaders who interject them selves into the personal intimate lives of the youth are wrong.  There are countless examples of the leaders of faith being wrong.  Change in your church comes from you. That is why the LDS Church changed the policy on blacks holding the priesthood.  It was politically motivated and was causing a rift in the membership.   Demand they revise their stance on this matter.  Demand they stay our of the sexual development of your children.  Ignore advice that comes from leaders who have a degree in law or business and not child development.  Most importantly let your children know that you love them and there is nothing wrong with developing normal sexual awareness.  Nurture your child not the misguided policies on sexuality.  Put your child before your faith.

Existentialism V Infinite Gas Tank

A philosophical theory or approach that emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will

I just filled my tank and I am completely bothered by the anticipation my tank is about to be empty.  It doesn't matter that I just filled it.  I take no delight in knowing I can go another 300 miles instead I am haunted by the fact the tank will soon be empty again.  This obsession leads to changing the display so I don't have to watch the count down.   I do however think about what that tank of gas will do, how far it will get me, and if I drive on the freeway vs. the city streets will the tank take me further.

Metaphorically, that gas tank represents my life.  I have a limited time to experience life.  The rules I abide by are rules I have learned through experience work for me.  They are not rules that will benefit you nor will the same experiences or result in the same conclusion.  There is no universally applied law when it comes to the individual choices we make.  Sure you can drive on the freeway and get better mileage, but if the freeway feels unnerving it may not be worth the sacrifice.

The fuel was provided after the tank was created.  It did not exist in essence before there was a vessel to carry it.  The quality and length of the fuel is determined by the choices I make and when the tank is empty I stop.  While this is not a perfect metaphor I think you can get the picture.

This is why I think religion is damaging and in many cases criminal in the way it expends our energy and asks to delay life as if were were idling.  We have potential for experience and to take roads less traveled to find ourselves and to do it on our terms.  There is a richness in this discovery that will lead to a genuine knowledge of who we are.  We are being asked to delay those experiences or the deny ourselves those experiences for a journey that in all likelihood does not exist.  In fact, in most cases it is so improbable that only elaborate rationalization and delusional thinking, prescribed by religious leaders, can convince us that we should delay our own personal grown in favor of adhering to their experiences. Our reward? ... an eternal tank of gas?  Preposterous!

Media Messages, Cultural Misogyny, and the Lie of Modesty

This video was making the rounds on my Facebook page this morning.  Here is the longer version ( http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2349117563337 ) I agree in part with the trailer's premise; I also think they are missing the mark here.  I have long said that our girls need strong role models and the writer and I agree here.  However I don't think the media is responsible for the objectification of our girls and women.  I think the media represents or reflects our societal image of the role of women but they didn't create the image.  Are they guilty of perpetuating the stereo type... sure but culturally we accept it.  


In the early 1970's the series All in the Family aired an episode which portrayed our prejudices regarding male homosexuality.  If we were to produce that same episode today it would not only be a flop but an outrage because our society has morphed.  The fact that less than 30% of high power media positions are held by women has more to do with the persistent messages we give to our daughters in our homes than what we show on TV and in magazines.  In fact I would postulate, as a whole, the objectification of women is born and nurtured in the misogyny of the conservative movement.  


There is this morsel from the 2011 LDS Church's general relief society meeting:

I know that each of us has a vital and essential role as a daughter of God. He has bestowed upon His daughters divine attributes for the purpose of forwarding His work. God has entrusted women with the sacred work of bearing and rearing children. No other work is more important. It is a holy calling. 

Our daughters have reached their potential when they have babies?  There is no a call for them to be scientists, lawyers, or even doctors.  In addition we give them more and more pressure to be modest; to cover their bodies; and to avoid being a "licked cupcake".  It is that same line of thought that denigrates the female form to an object.  We don't value the women for their potential we value them for the conditions of their bodies.  

The above image was circulating on Facebook as well.  If further illustrates the distorted view we have about what modesty and chastity means.  I fully believe they are artificial markers by which we measure American women.  

I think we need to acknowledge a couple of things.  First, humans are sexual beings. Second, we will always find a way to sexualize each other. Third, when you cover breasts, put the curves of women under  loose fitting clothing we will find a way to sexualize non sexual parts.

We will find ways to eroticize shoulders, ears, eyes, or hair length.  The strong sexual drive we have is what propagates our species.  It is natural.  

What is unnatural is to assign rigid gender roles based upon contrived religious or social dogma.  I am going to confess.... of all the women appearing in the above trailer, the one that I find most attractive is Rachael Maddow.  Not because she is super sexy, not because she is a lesbian and I think lesbian sex is hot; but, because she is smart, articulate, educated, and accomplished.  Sure, I find the images of the scantily clad women that are paraded on the trailer, out of context,  titillating.  Why would I not?  I am a sexual being.  However, I cannot say that I am attracted to any of the women.  Our contemporary culture is replete with icons like Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears who appear to be attractive until you hear them speak.  

Unfortunately, we perpetuate the myth that the media operates independent of our culture.  We assume the media tells us what is normal.  If we want to change the context in which our daughter's are developing their identities we need to do it from the very core.  Abandon the idea that their lot is to be mothers.  Motherhood is a choice; in as much, as going to medical school is.  Stop placing artificial emphasis on modesty of dress.  In cultures where women wear nothing but a loin cloth their body ceases to be an object of sexualization.  We need to form our ideas of success in accomplishment not in puritanical ideals based upon a bronze age text.  Our daughters are not the condition of their bodies but the condition of their minds.  If that is what the whole film says... I agree... if not, it is another Bowling for Columbine.  

Noise!

Is it me?  I have noticed that almost everybody on Facebook is talking but no one is listening.  Few people even take time to acknowledge that anyone else has something to say.  Everybody is talking over each other! I noticed this phenomenon over the last couple of weeks and it has been frustrating.  I follow a few bloggers and really prefer to read their posts on my Google reader.  The comments, in their comment sections, in many cases, result in real conversations (in print anyway).

I realize that Facebook is not the place to maintain real relationships.  It is however a way to meet and reconnect.  In some cases the interactions on either Facebook or in the Blogosphere can result in real human interactions.  For example, this summer I went to dinner with Kiley from We Were Going to be Queens.  I am good friends with Andrew from Hackman's Musings.  One I knew before I was Facebook and blogging friends the other I recently met.  When both a Facebook and real life relationship exists the interaction and empathy is richer.  That does't mean that all Facebook interactions are superficial.  I have several Facebook friends I have good interactions with whom I have never met.

I guess with my current school load I am feeling a bit disconnected from the daily interactions I had grown accustomed to with my peers.  I am feeling a little more isolated and my hourly Facebook fix is not filling the void  (like duh?).

Sexual Development In a Fishbowl - The Mormon Problem with Sex

Over the last month, three articles regarding modesty or sex addiction have come to my attention.  One was the Children's Friend article on modesty. The second was brought to my attention by my friend Thad and was linked in PostMormon.org.  The article appeared on KSL.com and describes a mother's reasons for banning Barbie dolls from her home.  The third article was this gem written by a marriage and family therapist from St. George.

It is well known that I consume and digest many things in the Mormon Culture of Utah.  It is also well known that I am an open critic of the LDS Church's policies on sex and sexuality and the harm I perceive they do.  This post is no exception.

First I will address briefly the Children's friend article.  The mother has a four year old who is worried about modesty.... and the mother furthers the neurosis by giving her an undershirt to cover the bare shoulders under her sun dress.  The mother then celebrates her four year-old's modesty.  First of all there is no such thing as four year-old modesty.  This is a self concept that has been imposed on the child and is not natural and circumvents the natural development of the child.  As many posters have written already on this topic... shoulders and four year-olds are not sexy.  However, when we engage in a practice of covering every inch of flesh; the net result is, we sexualize those portions of the body which normally wouldn't be sexy.

The next article was written by a mother who had taken the bold step of banning Barbie from her home. Not because of the unrealistic body image that Barbie represents for her daughters but because of the thoughts a naked pink silhouette would give to her sons.

Then one day my oldest son (a big second-grader at the time) came up to me with a half-naked Barbie doll in his hands and said to me sternly, "Mom, I don't think this is an appropriate toy." He had just had a fatherly talk with my husband about what is "appropriate" and what is "a poison worse than the black plague of death itself and should be avoided at all costs, lest it rot your mind like an unstoppable rebel force."

So first of all why would you be giving your 7/8 year old boy a talk about pornography?  Why would you start him on the path of self flagellant guilt.  Making him aware of his sexuality and giving shame to his natural development is not the sign of healthy family... it is the sign of a family who engages in cultish behavior.

I know for families of girls, Barbies are a lifeline, an institution even. But that is not my family. My daughters are surrounded by brothers. Hot-blooded, American boys who should not be put into tough, compromising spots every time they're rooting around the playroom on a quest to find that one LEGO piece to complete their set.

Again, it is the neurosis developed inside of the family that puts boys in the compromising position.  Is it appropriate to make the female form responsible for the boys behavior?  I believe we are sending the message that our daughters are objects and men are unable to control themselves.

And then there was this comment left on the now closed comment board:

Mickelle W.
posted 1 day ago
i personally hate seeing a naked barbie or ken doll laying on the floor of my house. but don't feel like it is fair to allow my son to have his boy toys if i am not going to allow my little girl to have hers. so when the dolls are purchased they become mine long enough to color on a leotard, or boxers depending on the sex of the doll. now who cares if my 7 year old son and all his macho boy friends take off the doll clothes in a front to get sisters goat. barbie remains modest, and mom remains un-bugged that their is a naked toy lying on the floor.

This brand of craziness does not breed children with healthy sexual identities.   Is not the Barbie the appropriate metaphor for the Mormon view of women?  She looks good without any capacity of enjoying sex.  That is where this programming leads and culture is replete with examples.

The final article and the one that really spawned this post was the one written by Geoff Steurer.  He discusses the talk he had with his father-in-law, 15 years ago, when he asked for his wife's hand in marriage.  He said, now the internet is more prevalent, he believes father-in-laws should be asking their potential son-in-laws about potentially sexually addictive behavior.

I have no doubt that if I were to go through that same interview today, her father would more than likely include one more line of questioning. I imagine it would sound something like this:
“Pornography is such a common struggle for so many young men these days. Naturally, I worry that this is something you have struggled with as a teenager or young adult. Will you please describe your experience with pornography and how you’ve handled it?”

Geoff, is a therapist.  They don't mind telling you that in the article.  However what they don't tell you is that pornography addiction and sexual addiction are not recognized by the APA.  He also does not tell you that masturbation is a normal sexual behavior.  Use of pornography for that purpose is considered normal.  Sexual addiction and pornography use at all, in LDS communities, is immediately assigned to addiction status even if the use is occasional and does not interfere with daily functioning.

If there isn’t a father in the home, then I still think it’s a good idea for the mother to have this conversation with the boyfriend. As awkward as it may seem to bring up this topic, I believe it’s even more awkward to deal with the potential aftermath if this issue surfaces later in marriage. 

Please note that if you are personally struggling with an unresolved pornography problem, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to counsel a future son-in-law about your concerns. You will feel like a phony and will either avoid the conversation all together, or minimize the seriousness of it as a way to protect yourself from the reality of your own struggles. If you have struggled with pornography and haven’t fully repented and recovered from the impact on your life, make sure that you’re actively working the same recovery process you would expect from this young man.

Does anyone see this as a boundary issue?

Discussion Points:

• Tell me about your experience with pornography over your lifetime.

• Is there a history of pornography use in your immediate or extended family?

• How do you define pornography?

• How have you healed from the impact of pornography on your life?

• Who helped you overcome your problems with pornography?

• How do you currently protect yourself from pornography?

• Have you ever wanted to stop viewing pornography, but couldn’t?

I know what I would have and would still tell my father-in-law if this came up... 'it is none of your business!'

Under his bullet point red flags the author says to worry if:

He insists that he’s never even seen pornography and appears “too perfect” in his responses. Recognize that even though he may not have seen hardcore pornography, we live in a culture saturated with pornographic images. If he acts like he doesn’t notice or isn’t affected by those, you need to be concerned. Every man should acknowledge the occasional pull from images that are designed to draw our attention and entice us.

The author is turning windmills into dragons.  He has to convince you that your normal sexual feelings and compulsions are abnormal.  So if you are looking at the Victoria Secret Catalogue  or the underwear section of the JcPenny Catalogue you are on the "slippery slope."  The problem with the author's stance here; is it is out of sync with contemporary thought on the issues of sexual development.  The migration to pornography may be more normal than the dogmatic abstinence of everything sexual.

It occurred to me, as I read the last article, growing up Mormon, especially in Utah, that you develop sexually in a fishbowl.  From the beginning, we have over protective and ill informed mothers inserting themselves into our sexuality.  If it is not the constant and unhealthy messages of modesty, it is interest in what we do in our private exploration.  We have Bishops, Stake Presidents and now future father-in-laws, asking us about our sexual habits as if they had a personal investment in it.  Mormons like to create distance between the practices of the FLDS and find the recent revelations that Jeffs engaged in sex in the temple with his brides in front of the witnesses disturbing.  Are they really that far removed from engaging in that type of voyeurism when they insert themselves into every aspect of, not only their children's, but every member's sexual practices?  Not just every member but also members of the unaffiliated community.

I have seen appropriately dressed females chastised for wearing clothing, that covers all of the appropriate regions, because they might be provocative or the are wearing fishnets and shorts.  I have had mother's assert that they would not allow their son's to engage in a stage kiss; because, they wanted their son's first kiss to be with the woman he was going to marry.  I have heard lectures of modesty given to unaffiliated girls who were also prepubescent and I have seen third parties put into a position of monitoring adult behavior to prevent any potential for adultery.

The Mormon obsession with sex is not healthy.  I have seen it cripple marriages and more importantly the healthy development of sexual attitudes and identities in children.  Instead of the fishbowl mentality it is time members tell everyone outside of their marriage "it is none of your business".  It is also time that we allow our children to develop sexually and to explore their bodies in a safe and nurturing environment that acknowledges that sex and sexual development are deeply personal and you are allowed to get aroused and deal with that arousal in a healthy, private, and pro-social way.  It is time we tell those loud and uniformed voices that what they are doing with their children is abusive and needs to stop.

Religious Debate... Where is your evidence?

A few days ago I linked this article from Not Very Useful Truths blog.  The author posted based upon a post placed by Kiley at We Were Going to be Queens.  This post resulted in, at last count, a 93 entry Facebook debate on my wall.  It was a debate that was brought to me not one I sought out.

I enjoy, for the most part, Facebook debates about religion and especially Mormonism.  This debate was no exception.  However when engaging in an "intellectual" debate one would assume that presentation of evidence that was objective, peer reviewed and or based upon accepted scientific principles would be enough to receive an acknowledgement that the facts in the argument simply do not support the belief structure.  Not when debating religion in general and especially, in this case, Mormonism.

The debate started of simply enough with an assertion that the doctrine was misunderstood.  When probed for proof the proof offered simply did not support the argument.  I certainly do not think of the LDS church, as a whole, is a force for good.  I don't think their stands on homosexuality, sexuality in general, and specifically as it pertains to the development of sexual identity in our children is a force for good.  I asserted in the argument that a church ran lawyers and MBAs cannot possibly run a church that is anything other than a corporation who looks out after its corporate interest first.

When the debate turned to the origin of the church and the lack of historical evidence that any of the claims are true; the debate turned interesting.  One of the participants in the debate, a medical practitioner, denied the validity of universally applied DNA testing methods.  He also denied that science has the ability to track the migration of populations based upon DNA.  Even though the Human Genome Project has provided enough information that we can track the migratory patterns of humans and determine through genetics where your tribe migrated from.  This is useful in the argument against the idea members of the so called Nation of Israel migrated to the Americas in 600 bce.  It also disproves the assertion the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.  What we know and now accept as fact is the human species originated in Africa.  Not the Americas.  The research has been published and peer reviewed.  The National Geographic Society published the finding and produced the documentary The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey.  When presented with the evidence this was the reaction:

Yeah right! And who's to say they're right or wrong? Their colleagues. I love so-called science that no one can prove or disprove. "This rock is 30 Billion years old". Who can refute it? I say it's 300 Billion years old! Wait, are we talking the age of it's creation, or the big bang formation of matter, in that case the rock is 600 trillion years old! Woah mama! These guys can throw around numbers with the best of them.

Wow, they disproved the garden of Eden was in Missouri? That's amazing! Oh the wisdom of men. They're so sure about things until another discovery comes along and disproved the whole notion.

I am not a fan of everything under the umbrella of "science". I am more a fan of applied science. You know, science that can actually be tested. The migration patterns of humans makes for good academic fodder, but there no way of testing thest theories.

(he hasn't seen the documentary but is willing to dismiss it outright)

 The fact that years of science education and critical analysis training cannot break down the two decades of prior religious indoctrination is concerning.  I think this graphic illustrates the discussion well.

I struggle to understand why, given the evidence, people of science trained in critical thought can find themselves sitting in pews of any religious order and especially orders that have assertions that are so easy to disprove such as Scientology and Mormonism.  They invest 10s of thousands of dollars in tithes, offerings, and service hours to these organizations who sit at the fringe of intellectual thought.

So here is my challenge.  If you come to my blog or Facebook page with assertions your religion is true.  Prove it!  Not with articles from the Ensign, FAIR, FARMS, The Catholic League, The Watchtower etc., but with peer reviewed scientific studies that have been published in secular scientific journals.  Your doctrinal claims mean nothing without objective evidence to back it up.  I have yet to see one ounce of credible evidence that any of the claims of Mormonism are based in fact.  No migration.  No great civilizations. No golden plates. However there is a great deal of evidence that disproves the migration, Eden in Missouri, the authenticity of the Book of Abraham.  When added to the historically factual accounts of the miserable characters of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young it makes it a hard pill to swallow.  So if you feel the need to defend your faith from people like me... first bring your evidence.

But before you do you might want to brush up on you logical fallacies:

.
.

... and I Like to Jog Naked

I have struggled with how to approach this topic or if I should even discuss it.  We held my Mother's funeral on July 20th.  It was kind of non-traditional for Utah.  There was a small private viewing held for her close friends and family who could not be with her when she died.  Her children, including myself, did not attend the viewing because we said our goodbyes at her bedside as she struggled with the disease and and eventually died.  We did not need that part of closure.  We held the service at graveside.

I look at funerals somewhat differently than my religious friends and family do.  I don't believe that my loved ones are on the other side waiting for me.  There is simply no evidence this is the case.  So, the funeral is my last opportunity to publicly memorialize my loved ones memory.

My mother had 4 children.  3 are atheists.  My youngest sister is a practicing Mormon.  There had been quite a bit of discussion between my siblings and I, with my mother's input ,as to how we would proceed after her death.  Her wishes were met as were ours.  No one's voice was drowned out and the discussion was civil and all sides were represented.  The plan was: My mother would be buried in a pink dress with her mother's ring.  She made it clear she did not want to be cremated.  She did not care if the coffin was expensive.  She did not want the service in a church.  She did not believe the Mormons had the corner on god and found them to be pushy and judgmental and she did not want her children to be lectured.  If the weather was warm she wanted to service to be graveside.  If the weather was cold she wanted us to have it indoors so those who came to pay respects would not be cold.  She did not want a viewing if we did not want to hold one.  We would not pray at the graveside and there would be no official religious representation.

When we met with the funeral director we outlined what we wanted to have happen and he was extremely helpful in assisting us in meeting those requests.  His compassion and sensitivity were a noted quality and we enjoyed, as much as you can, his assistance and would recommend his company without hesitation.  During our conversations it was clear that there would not be a religious rite of any kind for this funeral.  My   mother's sister asked if they could hold a family prayer at the viewing as they closed the casket.  It was made clear that we did not have a problem with the prayer (we wouldn't be there after all) if it made them feel better but there would be none graveside.

The service was successful.  I conducted.  There was a musical number sung by my daughter Jessica and my sister-in-law Jennifer.  My Aunt Nene read a beautiful poem she wrote for my mother.  I made opening remarks followed by an open mic and concluded with closing remarks offered by me again.  I operated in the capacity that my siblings had requested and expected me to.  By all accounts, the service was beautiful simple and was exactly the type of service my mother wanted.

My Mother's Siblings and their families at her funeral 07/20/2011

So curmudgeon what is the issue?

We had three guests at our little secular funeral who found it necessary to use the open mic as an opportunity to bear their testimonies.  They could not stand the fact we were fine without the mention of the Mormon church or Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, or even god.   Additionally, the hearse driver pulled me aside.  He told me that he had heard that there might be an anti-religion sentiment to our service.  He told me that he was happy to see that no one was forced out of their beliefs.  He thought it would have been wrong to not allow people to speak.  My mother's siblings attended the funeral in their Wrangler's.  They were dressed informally.  I was dressed in a black suit, white shirt, and red and black tie.  The hearse driver mistook me for the out voted religious minority at the service.  He made a broad assumption that I was a "member of the church" and about shit when he realized he was talking to one of the "angry militant atheists".  I was gracious and let him and the other's say their peace.  I didn't attempt to stop them.  I was non confrontational.

During this process many people have expressed their condolences and a few have had to add that they know my mother is in a better place, is watching down on me, is with her relatives, or is comforting someone else who is recently deceased.  As people would offer their religious views including the afterlife while offering their condolences I found myself turning them off or going somewhere else in my head until they were done while graciously accepting their kindness.  I don't understand why there is an imperative for them to share those things with people who do not want them.  I don't share my atheism unless it is solicited.

My point of this writing is to illustrate how unwanted religious expression is really a two way street.  Imagine, if you will, if I were attending a Mormon funeral and told the guests at the funeral that this is it.  Your loved one is going to rot in the ground and you will never seen them again.  While this is what I believe I have never shared it during a persons most painful or emotional times.  What if I made a point of telling them that they can pray their lives away but there is no one there to hear them.  Would any of those conversations give comfort to a hurting human?  No!  Neither do expressions of faith to an atheist.  My father-in-law put this in perspective to one of my wife's siblings.  He told them, 'you need to understand for Kevin this is it.  There is no more and he will never see his mother again.'  That was an appropriate acknowledgement of what I believed.  He did not offer faith promoting insights to me instead he cried with us and gave us incredible emotional support.

I have said it before, unsolicited expressions of faith are icky.  Faith, like your bedroom habits, should be shared when solicited and with like minded people.... otherwise keep them to yourself.

I think the next time someone offers an unsolicited and otherwise inappropriate expression of faith to me my response is going to be... " ...and I like to jog naked."  Well, as long as were sharing inappropriate information....