It is all about Consent

A couple of thoughts on Human Sexuality:

First, your sexuality is your own.  Nobody owns it.  You don’t subjugate it to someone else when you get married. You certainly do not subjugate it to a god.  As such, as parents or adults we do not own our children’s sexuality.  We merely defend their right to consent.  That defense should be against anyone who wishes to take their right to consent away from them.  I think molestation and the perversion of defining sex and sexuality as sinful or immoral is equally damaging to a child.  Teaching children to fight their natural urges because there is some eternal punishment waiting for them takes away their ability to consent. 

Children should be free to explore their own sexuality on their own terms. That means masturbation is an activity in which they can give enthusiastic consent to.  It is not something we should wrap in guilt and control (outside of teaching it is personal and private).  That does not mean it is a free-for-all. Part of exploring sex and sexuality is acknowledging that there are ground rules.  In my house that included a “Don’t Rape” conversation in which we discussed who is legally and ethically able to give consent. It also means discussing the consequences of sex including disease and pregnancy.  We certainly have on going discussions around what a healthy relationship looks like.

The individual defines sexual preference.  To deny someone their own sexual identity and preference, in the framework of consent, is to deny them the ability to consent. In that, teaching rigid gender norms also denies the child, in part, the ability to consent, as they become adults.  They are unable to engage in sexual expression that is free of guilt or shame. Consensual sexual behavior should not be wrapped in guilt.

When it comes to marriage/committed relationships monogamy is one relationship style.  It is not the only relationship style.  There are times when it certainly is not a healthy relationship style. While Lisa and I have chosen monogamy and it works for us, I don’t think any less of those who successfully practice polyamory. I also do not have an issue with non-religious polygamy, serial monogamy, asexuality, co-habitation, or fetish lifestyles like BDSM.  The question that has to be asked when evaluating any relationship is, "Does consent exist".  If it does, its none of my business.

Pornography is not addictive.  That does not mean that there are not compulsions that exist around sex and sexual behavior.  But the underlying mental illness is not in the media.  It is in the compulsion itself. Many studies have found that a stressor triggers compulsions.  When the stressor is removed, the compulsion diminishes or disappears.  There is some data that suggests our puritanical views of sex and sexuality creates that stressor.  We tell women they are not only the subjects of their husbands but also the gatekeeper of all that is moral and wholesome in the household.  It is their job to watch their husbands so they don't stray.  That includes watching the husbands Internet use to see if he is looking at pornography.  This leads to secrecy and in many case triggers a compulsion.  Its not the pornography that triggers it.  It is the secrecy.  This brings me back to my original assertion: “Nobody owns your sexuality… not even your spouse”.  There are many reasons to not like pornography.  You may find it exploitative.  In some cases it has been.  You may find it reflects unrealistic expectations on how sex works.  It does.  But at the end of the day if consent is given in the production of the pornography and your spouse views it privately, it is none of your business.  It remains none of your business until he/she asks you to partake. 

Who is watching and why it matters how we talk about homosexuality

A couple of years ago I was engaged in a discussion on gay rights on Michelle Willis's board.  The subject was the Jc Penney ads featuring lesbian mothers.  It was argument I engaged in with passion.  I supported, as I have since 1984, the rights of homosexuals to live a genuine life.  I was up against the pious and self-righteous Mormons on Michelle's board.  Trite arguments were volleyed back and forth.  I knew there was no way to "win" the argument with these people but I was still up for the fight.  In the middle of the whole mess I got a private message.  It was one of Michelle's friends who had been watching the debate.  The messages was a "thank you for the support".  'I thought Michelle was my friend.  I can see that she is not.' Was the tone.  While Michelle lost a friend that day, that person knew there was an ally who was willing to stand up.

Last Friday, a federal judge struck a fatal blow to Utah's amendment 3.  The Facebook feed blew up.  I have engaged in as many conversations as I could on those feeds.  Some might even call me a troll because I engage even when I am not invited

Why?

Because people are watching that is why.  I was reminded of this when I read a friends beautiful and eloquent response to his mother who was asking if his support for gay rights would change it it were his own child.  He of course said no... and that people are watching.  People in pain who are trying to find someone to talk to.

So when you are fighting equality in your Facebook feed who are you helping?

Are you standing up for your god?

Does he really need you to stand up to him?

Are you standing up for your church?

Are you on the church's legal team?  Do they really need you.

Are you standing up for freedom and the constitution?

Are you a constitutional attorney... and don't you see the hypocrisy?

Who are you hurting?

You are likely hurting someone who isn't vocal.  Someone who is sitting in the dark crying because they feel like there is something wrong with them.  Someone who may be your child, sibling, maybe even your own parent.  What they are is a human being who needs support, love and acceptance.  They didn't ask for this and to ask them to deny who they are is harmful.  To characterize their being as a "sin", as a "choice" as a "lifestyle" or one that is "not to be acted on" inflicts an undue amount of pain.

The LGBT community inside of Mormonism has one of the highest suicide rates.  The LGBT community in the United States has a suicide rate that exceeds the national average.   It is time we stop treating them like they are throw aways.

I am a supporter of equality.  I support the choices consenting adults make out of love. I support teaching our children how to develop healthy fulfilling intimate relationships with whomever they love.  It is not about sin.  It is about humans.

Conversely, I do not support bigotry and on this blog I will identify bigots by first and last name.  The world should know who you are.  Those who are watching should know who is not safe.

Sexism: Just another reason David Alvord is Wrong for South Jordan!

Sexism:

1
:  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women2
:  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

My discussion around David Alvord's candidacy for Mayor of South Jordan has been as much about temperament as anything.  Well David can't help himself.  If you are from Utah and know anything about Mormonism you have probably heard of the Ordain Women movement.  It is a feminist movement that asks the Mormon church to treat members of all sexes equally.  They staged a protest during the last LDS General conference.  They are brave women who know asking for equality means they risk excommunication and ostracism.  However David Alvord, the sexist, thinks it is fair to belittle their request.

   So he was supported by a few folks but largely criticized by others for his flippant insensitivity and sexism.  As a result, David did what he usually does... he deleted the post.  He also did what he usually does... put up another post to make his point.

  I support David's right to "BLURT".  I would just think he would use a filter knowing that he was running for political office and someone like me might write about it.  Why would he do such a thing?  Well, because he was defending the church thats why!

I think, most importantly, he thinks sexism is ordained by god:

It is becoming clearer that David Alvord lacks the temperament to be Mayor.  He has a context in which he looks at the world that makes him a poor candidate to represent the rest of the community.  South Jordan needs a leader that is fair to everyone no matter their sex or religion.

It'll Stunt Your Growth

This photo of a child smoking caught my attention today.   When it was taken, I am sure there was nothing wrong with putting a cigarette in a small child's mouth.  It was funny.  I mean after all what did we know about smoking back then?  Today we would consider this abuse. After all, what where her parents thinking.

I had a Facebook friend who recently suggested parents should have the freedom to raise their children in any manner they chose even if that meant exposing them to dangerous factory work at a young age.  I of course took exception with this attitude.  

I have a similar reaction when parents expose their children to religious indoctrination.  I have seen perfectly reasonable children turned into self loathing followers.  I additionally have seen them ignore important flaws in their religion.  Those flaws, when observed with a critical eye, proves the claims of the institution false.  If they don't absolutely prove it they certainly cast doubt on its validity. 

There is something about indoctrination that causes us to compartmentalize our beliefs and to shield them from critical examination.  The indoctrination as a child, carries over to adult hood and derails the critical thought process.  

I have had believers testify to me that they know of many who are religious and critical thinkers. I submit this can only occur through compartmentalizing your beliefs.  It is in this attempt I hear statements like, 'god can not be judged by physical laws' or 'we cannot understand god the way we under stand the physical world'.  As a result they come to know what they don't understand or cannot prove as evidence god.  It is fallacious but imperceptible to them.

When critical thinking is applied to those ingrained beliefs it is often emotionally painful.  For some it is too painful for them to complete the journey. Others explore other paths such as mysticism or alternative medicine or engage in government conspiracy theories because they don't really know how to fully apply critical thought.    

My mother used to tell me I should avoid cigarettes because they would stump my growth.  I see religion in the same way.  I am as apt to give my children a cigarette as I am to teach them to worship a myth.  In many ways I think the cigarette is less harmful.  

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!

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....

What We Do Not Teach

I have not posted in over a month.  I know that is no way to keep a readership nor is it keeping the goals that I set at the beginning of the the year.  I know that you are wondering 'what happened to curmudgeon?'  Okay I know that I am not really weighing on your minds but I like to have my own fantasies.

In January I made a radical change in my life.  I ended my 25 year career with the State of Utah.  I retired 5 years prior.  I was double dipping in a job that really met none of my needs much less contributed to happiness.  After my friends Matt's suicide and some other financial trials I reevaluated my priorities and decided it was time to make a radical change and to live out my remaining 30+ years pursuing life instead of money.  I reentered Salt Lake Community College taking 17 credit hours to complete my Associates Degree in General Studies.  I will graduate in May.  I will return to the University of Utah mid May to work on my bachelors degree in Theatre Performing Arts Design.  Once completed I will follow that up with masters in education.  I can complete half of the M.Ed. while an undergrad.

So the title of this post is "The Things We Do Not Teach."  At the community college I have taken two courses this semester that have been wrapped into the conservative fabric of this state.  The first is Human Biology.  In Human Biology we discussed, as we should, evolution.  I was a bit disturbed by the fact that when it came to discussing Macro Evolution the instructor stated we would be skirting the topic so that those who believed in a higher power would not have that belief challenged.  There is one person in the class who noted the text book is not as sensitive and directly discusses macro evolution.  This is a guy who has made jokes about democrats being parasites in the class when we discussed the immune response system.  He also accepts state offered and paid for assistance in the form of a note taker as provided by IDEA.  A Democrat supplied program. I found it frustrating that we are in a class full of adults and we have to skirt the topic of evolution because, although there is plenty of evidence supporting evolution, it might offend someone's fantasy about a god created earth.  In fact there is more evidence for evolution than there is for a god.  We are adults.  Provide the evidence and the data in an objective matter and let us make the conclusions from that.  If you want to entertain the idea of a god at a collegiate level take philosophy .

The second topic that bothered me was in my Human Sexuality Course.  When we talked about sexual satisfaction and guilt we were told we could not discuss religion in that context.  Now I agree that we should not bash religion in the context because there is some evidence religion contributes to delay of risky sexual habits in teens.  There is also the evidence that practices like teen sex and masturbation are normal natural processes in sexual development and the religious programing can be harmful in the healthy development of adult sexual experiences.  Religion in this case became the 1,000 pound gorilla in the room.  Again, we are adults.  We can handle the truth in an evidence and socially responsible conversation regarding the entire spectrum of the topic of sex and human sexuality.

I have to say as a whole these courses have been exceptional.  I have enjoyed the instructors and their approaches to the topics.  I just think in a higher education institution the truth should be discussed as supported by evidence in classes that demand it.

How Legislated Hate Gets a Pass in Religious Communities

Two days ago I posted my commentary on Lavar Christensen's proposed HB 270.  While I still mean everything I said in that post it has come to my attention I may have been distracted by the shiny keys being jangled.  It appears this is one of three bills designed to not directly, but in a round about way, void the progress made by local municipalities to give equal protection to homosexuals or any other fringe group not specifically protected by the federal anti discrimination laws.

This article written by Peg McEntee outlines what she call may be unintended consequences of the HB 109, HB 270 and HB 182.  

McEntee: Unintended consequences in “one man, one woman” bill

Given the way the Utah Legislature works, there is no such thing as an unintended consequence when it comes to piety.  Mr. Christensen has put together a strategy to very callously strip away any inroads we have made toward equality and to affording all of our citizens equal protection under the law no matter what they believe religiously or who they love sexually.  What he will be successful in accomplishing is the further insulation religious bigots from consequences for their actions.

For some reason, Christensen finds it necessary to beef up protections for “religious liberty and freedom of conscience” that already exist in the Utah and U.S. constitutions.
But at what point does religious liberty collide with more secular protections against racial, gender or any other manner of discrimination?
Your religious principles allow you to refuse restaurant service to a person of color? You object to a woman with children working outside the home, so you won’t hire her? You won’t rent an apartment to two single women or men because their possible sexual orientation might be an affront to your faith?
Christensen has an answer: “The free exercise of religious liberty is a recognized exemption to otherwise generally applicable laws and a valid defense to claims of discrimination by others.”

So if you believe that Black Americans are inferior based upon religious dogma you are free to exercise that here in Utah without consequence.  If you want to deny housing, in Salt Lake City, to homosexuals, where the  denial would be illegal you are free to do so under his additional religious expression.  If you want to refuse to teach principles in the class room that have been proven by science you are free to do so.

Equally disturbing is his amendment to 13-8-6 makes a law that violates "public policy" unenforceable.  If paired with HB 270 it makes it so the no fault divorce option may be unavailable to couples who fall out of love and don't want a long messy divorce.  It further prevents gay adoption, marriage, and perpetuates legally protected discrimination when paired HB 109.

As an outspoken Militant Atheist the idea that religion needs additional protection is absurd.  You have the right to practice what you will as long as you don't injure someone else in the process.  Denying someone housing based upon what they might do in their bedroom is causing injury.  Denying a child a loving parent because that parent loves someone of the same sex is injurious.  But it is not just on the gay rights front that this is dangerous.  It is single mothers, unmarried couples, and potentially mixed race couples that will run afoul of the cleverly disguised trifecta of hate proposed by Rep. Christensen.

There is a question that often runs in atheist circles:  "Do we have to show tolerance to that which is intolerant?"  Does religion deserve the respect it demands and that is constitutionally protected?  More importantly, does it deserve additional protections that alters the playing field and gives it a "better than" status.  I submit the answer to the above questions is no.... not when it uses it protections to force the rest of us to live in its shadow and harms any member of our populous in the name of its distorted world view.  Mr. Christensen is using his piety to influence public policy even though the result will ultimately be harmful to our society.  Unfortunately most Utahn's will nod their heads in agreement or are too busy watching the Super Bowl or American Idol to pick up a local news paper to educate themselves the impact of the legislation.  We know we want a democratic republic but we are unwilling to participate in the process.

Write you local Representative and Senator and let them know you find this group of bills unconscionable.  Let's give no public forum for hate.

Should we Limit Expression that Causes the Rabid Right to Get their Panties in a Wad.

I had a brief (no pun intended) conversation with my Facebook friend Thomas on the fact that there are few American Artists who's work is compelling, edgy, and that tells a story.  In fact, the object of that conversation is posted below:

I responded to the post with this comment:

If we had artists like this they would be censored and their works hidden from public view. Maybe not at the hands of the government but by way of right wing hysteria.

And the following morning this story is featured on Fox 13:



This is exactly the same "Right Wing Hysteria" I was talking about.  I remember, while I was a college student, the Salt Lake City Public Library had some nude paintings on display. The ridiculous outcry was all over the news including one mother who was completely distraught because her little boy was having nightmares over the paintings.  The ilk of the Knitting Needle Mafia have instituted plastic covers for magazines in our grocery stores to censor what they deem inappropriate material.

There is the rub... it is what they deem inappropriate.  As the video indicates the law is clear as to what can be determined pornographic and a woman wearing the equivalent of a bikini is does not rise to that level.  Nor does the word SEX on the cover of Cosmopolitan.

So it is the ads in the mall, the magazines in grocery store and what is next the art in our museums...



I enjoyed the hosts final comment:

I don't think it is up to anyone to tell me what art I am and am not allowed to see.

The point of this post is that if we allow the fundies, the pious, the superstitious, and the rabid right to control the media they also control the message.  Watch this video that discusses the outrage over the Atheist bus ads in Fort Worth Texas.  Note how fauxrage over the freedom of expression will drown out a minorities message:



The bus system will likely stop carrying this type of ad and the Mayor of Fort Worth has threatened to change the makeup of the board if they don't agree with him.  They take away an outlet for those who are non religious to engage in what is really a benign and in offensive message.

John F. Kennedy said:

The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure.....

If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.

And as such we should resist restrictions of expression whether the art is commercial, the art is edgy, or the art is just beautiful.  Restrictions of expressions of points of view that are not your own is tyrannical.  This is certainly not what the First Amendment is about.  But if you are a fundamentalist I guess the First Amendment was inspired by God to protect your point of view only.

"...well they were acting as men."

In 1983 I worked on the Pioneer Theatre Company's production of Amadeus. One of my favorite parts of this show was when Salieri realizes that his life dedicated to religion and the celebration of god through his music did not earn him the position of god's favorite composer.  Instead that honor went to Mozart.

"I was suddenly frightened.  It seemed to me that I heard the voice of God–and that it issued from a creature whose own voice I had also heard–and it was the voice of an obscene child."~ Peter Schaefer's Amadeus.

But Mozart was not really god's instrument he was a man like any other with a gift or a natural born and cultivated talent.  To Salieri the fact that his flawed man was so talented was a slap in the face and cause for a declaration for war against god and a quest to silence his instrument.

I was reminded of this story as I read the Salt Lake Tribunes article on Ezra Taft Benson.  The article pointed out how one of the LDS church's more colorful figures was deeply flawed.  For those of us who are now on the outside this was no surprise.  His follies have been documented his grandson and it is well known that he is the one character in Utah that is responsible for our single party system of government.

Benson was not the first colorfully flawed religious leader where there was a belief that his position/authority/talents were god given.  In LDS lore there are the characters of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.  Smith was a know treasure hunter, philanderer/polyandrous man who criminally destroyed a printing press and started a couple of rebellions and then died in a shoot out while attempting to escape from jail.  Young was a racist polygamist with a thirst for blood atonement who is credited with the orders/environment  that resulted in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  

It is not just LDS leaders who are flawed and leave as their legacy scandals.  The Catholic Church has a rich history of scandals which include the Spanish Inquisition, incest, and organized crime.  The Evangelicals have Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Robert Tilton, and Kent Hovind.  The list includes extra marital affairs, tax evasion, homosexual relationships and fraud.

If you ask the faithful they will excuse the behavior of these supposed men of god.  The will say when they are doing good in the world it was inspired of god.  What about their less inspiring moments?  Well... they were not acting as prophets or men of god.  They were acting as men.

Which is exactly my point.  In each case these supposed men of god rose to power by making claims they could not prove.  They maintained power through manipulation and either lost power through scandal or their fraud became apparent after their death.  It takes incredible mental gymnastics to engage in the cognitive dissonance that is required to follow these leaders or to believe their works are inspired once you know how flawed they are in character.  Yet the faithful write checks, invest time and energy and bet their salvation on the word of men.  Even if that man is "the voice of an obscene child."

The Things We Say! It's up for Discussion!

This might be a continuation of my last post.  There are several sayings that have their root in religious piety that are real conversation enders.  Primarily because they have no quick retort nor is it considered in good form to answer them in a contrary manner.  I have heard several of those this week and wanted to discuss a couple here.  

"God will never give you more than you can handle.":  This is a response to many of life's challenges including cancer victims and has been recently used in response to those who feel like they have been born gay and it is too much to be asked to stay abstinent.  Some might considered it to be a benign and sometimes spiritual saying; however, I see it as a conversation ender and a statement that is dismissive and is absent of any empathy.  If you are suffering and need to tell someone about it and they retort "God will never give you more than you can handle"  how do you respond.  If you on the giving end of this statement do you really want to share this persons pain?  Do you recognize the absurdity of the statement?

Absurdity:  If you are suffering from cancer and death is imminent, if you are a family member of the cancer victim, if you have lost a child, if your home has just burned down.... god is testing you.  If you loose faith you fail the test.   If the pain is too much and you blame god then the problem is yours because he knew you could handle it and you let him down.  Conversely if you are wealthy and have had no real challenges in life then god must think you were weaker and would not be able to rise to the test.  So you are punished for strength and  rewarded for weakness?

"It wasn't in God's plan for you": If you have tried and worked your heart out and it still hasn't happened its because this guy had a different plan for you and failed to tell you.  Again an opportunity missed to assuage the hurt feelings of someone who is in pain and demonstrate our humanity.  Instead a dismissive remark that invokes piety and hurts someone who may really need empathy is offered.  This was a common saying while I grew up and is kind of woven into the the idea that your existence on earth was preordained.  Now there was also the idea that you had free agency and so if your life was preordained then you really didn't have free agency.

Absurdity:  The saying brings into play two conflicting concepts.  You are free, through agency, to chart your own course but if you fail it is because "it wasn't in God's plan for you." If you follow God's plan for you then you give up your agency.  So it becomes "Your Mission if you Choose to Accept it" ?

"Pray like it is up to God, Work like it is up to you":  This is my favorite saying from annals of pious belief because at least it is an acknowledgement that your dream will likely be realized by your own hard work not divine intervention.

Absurdity:  I don't see this saying as absurd as much as I do the interpretation of it.  I interpret it as an acknowledgement that there very well could be a possibility that there is not a god up there that is really involved.  However, some may say that what you are asking for is too trivial to warrant intervention and therefore your success is up to you alone.  God is too busy to help.  So if you have cancer and you pray for a cure and that is not answered does that mean your life and your existence is too trivial for god to care about?  

So the question is is there a saying that is thrown around your circles that you find absurd or that is a conversation stopper?

Words and Their Meaning

Over the last several days I have given some thought to words and how we assign a value to them.  Specifically how we define swear words or words that are offensive.  George Carlin does a great and classic piece on the 7 words you cannot say on TV.  He also is good at pointing out our own hypocrisy when it comes to making rules about what you can or cannot say.  The video clip is below.  If you are easily offended don’t click on play.

Living here in Morridor there are several other words that are swear words for no other reason that they are assigned that weight.  My favorite Utah swear word is “Stupid”.  I have seen the swift retribution of mothers to their children who use this word toward their siblings.  The reaction is the same as is if they had used the “mother of all swear words”.

My second favorite swear word is “God” .  The way I understand this rule: If you use “God” in any context except a direct conversation with God then it is a swear word.  Here is where we have to engage in mental gymnastics to justify using the word in a manner that it is not offensive.  You can say “thank God”  because apparently this is an aside conversation with god.  You can say, “this is why God Invented”,  because apparently you are giving this ambiguous person credit in some sort of aside wink and nod. You obviously say  "pray to God” and request his guidance because you are talking to god.  However as soon as you say “Oh My God!”  you are taking “the Lord’s name in vain!?!?”  Now I thought gods name was Yahweh or Elohim if you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian texts.  God is a title!... kind of like Dr. or Mr. or PHD. or MA is it not?

If you are a word like damn you are automatically a swear word because of your association with the infamous word god.  Damn in Utah and its other form Dammit  are immediately censored as gateway swear words.  It starts with a damn and then progresses to a god damn and before long you will be saying Stupid!  Absurd?  Yes!

There is a reason we have developed language as humans.  That reason is because we needed a way to communicate ideas.  While some words in our language have terse meanings and they are abrupt and jarring when uttered… some times they are appropriate to the situation or to the context.  Our abhorrence  to using them sometimes gets in the way of ability to communicate.  I worked with a nice lady who rarely would use any of the “7 Words You Can’t Say of TV”.  She would say that sometimes there is no other word that is powerful enough to communicate the idea.  That is why we see content on TV, in the movies, and in our other forms of literary expression using language that is colored, textured, and multidimensional.

This phenomenon is not limited to the use of swear words. We avoid using words that are appropriate in many contexts and are the proper descriptors  to be offered.  In my last post I noted how Doug Wright could not say the words Oral, Anal, or Vaginal Sex on his radio program.  Why?  They were the appropriate descriptors.  Additionally, we fail to teach our children to use words that describe their body parts like penis or vagina.  Instead we treat them as dirty words and in our inability to to get over our 5th grade reaction we inhibit their ability to communicate with their physicians or healthcare providers.  We also inhibit their ability to have a healthy view of their bodies and in our effort to diffuse our own discomfort with the word we actually do harm to our children.  Our reaction to words ultimately taints the real value that word as in our rich language.

I am not an advocate of using course language in all settings.  I correct my children when they use language that is shocking or inappropriate for the situation but in Utah and in other fundamental communities in the United States; I think we have taken it too far.  I am not sure why?  I suspect that it is in part because of religious piety, in part because of political correctness and in part because we think that June and Ward Cleaver were normal representations of the American Family.  To take away the texture of our language is to relegate us an artificial “Pleasantville” existence that is not representative of the American or Human experience.  Dammit! Even Disney knows that!

The Questions should be asked.... when they are young and often as they grow

I was in the car today at about 11:00am listening to Doug Wright on KSL.  He brought this story up on his talk radio program and the engaged in an hour worth of faux outrage:

Sex Survey at D.C. School Sparks Controversy

A Washington, D.C., middle school is under fire after distributing a survey to seventh-graders asking both boys and girls about their sexual orientations and whether they knew how to put on a condom, among other sex-based questions.

The survey, developed by Metro TeenAIDS, a group dedicated to helping young people fight against HIV/AIDS, was intended to raise awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and teach the children how to avoid them,

I read the survey that is linked to the article.  It is a little but direct it uses medical terms that Doug would not repeat on the air ie. oral, vaginal, or anal sex.  It asked the kids if they knew how to get condoms and if they knew how to put one on themselves or their partners.  I did not see anything in the article that my children who live in a nice middle class conservative suburban neighborhood didn't already have some knowledge about.   This survey was given to 7th graders.  Some kids where as young as 11.  I didn't get the outrage because these were similar to the questions my LDS Bishop asked when I was 12.  The same Bishop that asked theses questions of my sister when she was 11 and who described the act of masturbation to my younger sister when she was 12.

There was a minor screw up.... they forgot to send the opt out letter home the day before the test.

Okay that was a screw up but there is a reality, to quote a line from the movie Fame "The kids in my neighborhood are into sex much earlier.... about 6am."  There is a reality that inner city neighborhood children are exposed to sex much earlier in their lives.  There is something about growing up poor in a neighborhood without parental supervision, where drug abuse is high and education is low that causes that dynamic.  I knew a young woman who grew up in inner city Chicago.  She reported she had consensual sex for the first time when she was 8.

So caller after caller called and expressed their outrage and many said this discussion belongs in the home.  But the comment that floored me was the one who said this conversation belonged in the home and maybe with their religious leader ( in Utah that translates to "the Bishop") but this conversation should not have occurred in a health class, with a trained health teacher, because the school is 16 times more likely to have students engage in risk behavior.  REALLY? a Bishop is more qualified to ask theses questions than trained aids workers?

The reason we need comprehensive sex education in this state and early is because we are at risk of having stats similar to Washington DC.  Conservatives like to tell us there is consequences to behavior.... when your child is dying of aids that was preventable not only are they responsible but so are you for denying them information that could have saved their lives.  Instead we opt to pretend that a parent with no formal training has any real expertise to teach the child and that they will.  Once they have the disease all the prayers, blessings, or voodoo will do nothing to save them.