Do Likewise: Why We All Need
to Do Our Part I'll keep this one short as the pictures
tell the story.
Back in 2003, the publicly held
company for whom I was working acquired a competitor.
Their former Denver headquarters became our new Colorado
facility after the takeover. I was in town for business
and stumbled upon a rather disturbing sight. I had my
camera with me and took the first two pictures. Five
minutes later I was on the phone with one of our Human
Resources representatives to register a complaint,
and the tenor of my voice made it crystal clear that
I was not going to back down. Two days later I took the
third photo which should reveal the nature of our little
chat.
Click each photo above to see the
full-size detail.
To honor god? Um, I don't
think so.
I implore you all. Never let this kind
of crap go unchecked. Ever. Make them keep their
god crap to themselves or within the confines of a religious
setting, like a house of worship or some other religious
organization and NEVER within the bounds of a
publicly-owned business.
I win.
Bridge For Sale: The
Gullibelievers I've received many letters over the years
from Christians who took great offense to statements I've made
about Christians being so gullible that they believe what
they're told. I should ignore such knee-jerk reactions because
they're founded in the deep insecurity of looking foolish in
their beliefs. (It's amazing how people who claim to be
so faithful, with god on their side no less, get so
panicky when some dumb schmuck with a website pokes them in
the ribs.) But since those comments continue to draw so
much hate mail I might as well address it.
Again, for the
record, Christians are inherently weak, gullible, easily
fooled, and they believe what they're told. I said it
before, I say it again now, and I stand by it.
One of my great joys in life is
watching the delicate "faith vs. intellect" dance invoked when
bastards like myself force Christians to defend both.
You see, they can't. (Many try, but you can
read about those faithless rationalizers later.)
The patent silliness of religious
dogma itself causes faith and intellect to be in conflict on
almost any point. Take your pick. There are
hundreds to choose from: virgin births, talking snakes,
walking on water, parting the seas, raising the dead.
You'd have to be a lunatic to believe such nonsense all on
faith, right? Well, the truly
faithful will but the deeply insecure
can't.
Check it out for yourself.
Call any Christian gullible and delusional to their face and
watch their faith quickly melt away as they attempt to defend
their intellect. Oh, they can clamor on all they want
about their place in eternity, and I sincerely hope it helps
them sleep well at night. But while they're waiting to
join Jesus in heaven they can't afford to be labeled as
such. Too much in life is riding on their perceived
intelligence. But enjoy the entertainment as they jump
from one foot to the other in a sad, desperate attempt to
honor their god and maintain some semblance of
sanity.
Imagine someone with the
arrogance to tout an in-your-face bumper sticker that reads,
God Said It, I Believe It, That Settles
It and then have the temerity to take exception to me
saying that they believe what they're told! It's like me
shaving my head and then getting upset when someone calls me
baldy. Just a little consistency, folks. That's
all I ask.
But I suppose I understand their
reaction to the likes of me.
The Christian
fundamentalist mind functions at very primitive level, and
detecting certain nuances of figurative speech is often beyond
their abilities. So they take knee-jerk offense to my
charge without regard to colloquialisms or scope. They
accuse me of being so unfair to assume their all-encompassing
stupidity because we don't agree on matters of faith.
This couldn't be further from the truth. (Click here to see where I said so.)
Of course, even if I did mean to imply such a thing would
it be nearly as offensive as telling someone they're destined
to an eternity in hell?
Some people need to be spoon-fed
when it comes to the subtle nuances of the written word, so
I'll point it out for those who just don't get it. When
I say that Christians believe what they're told, I'm
not using the word "told" as a literal absolute
(meaning verbally informed). And surely you're
smart enough to spot that the scope of my statement does
not extend to every piece of information known to
man. How can anyone with at least a third grade reading
comprehension know this? Okay, pay close attention
kids...[clearing throat]...
THIS IS AN ATHEISM
WEBSITE.
Was that not clear to you?
Aside from scattered personal commentary about my life, the
scope of my little online endeavor is limited to the LUNACY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and those who
adhere to any flavor of it. That's all. Clear
now?
Would your average Christian
believe that the moon was made of green cheese just because
some moron told them so or because they read it
somewhere? Of course not, and I neither said nor implied
that they would.
The
moon's composition is a purely secular topic. And
furthermore, with regard to my use of the word told,
I was clearly referring to the acquisition of information and
not the manner in which it was conveyed. Got
it?
Bible lore is ultimately tied to the
written word. You were told, you read, it came
to you in a dream, whatever. It's all the same. No
one need "tell" a Christian anything that he or she will
ultimately believe on their own accord. How
they receive the information is wholly irrelevant. The
compelling factor is that they believe it.
An evangelical Christian does
believe what they are told (i.e. what is conveyed to
them regardless of manner). The bible "tells" Christians
many things, literally THOUSANDS of
things, which Christians believe BECAUSE
THE BIBLE SAYS SO.
Go ahead and start back-peddling
if you must, but Christians have well-established the
precedent. Remember that children's song...
"Jesus loves me,
this I know, for the bible tells me
so..."
How easy it is to indoctrinate
[read: brainwash] an entire generation if you get to them
young enough, eh? And again, I'll remind you of that
arrogant little bumper sticker...
"God Said It, I Believe It,
That Settles It!"
This is my challenge: Prove me
wrong by telling me JUST ONE THING
that the Old or New Testament tells you that you don't
believe. If you can't, then my statement
stands.
Checkmate.
There's no gray
here. For Christians it's a thoroughly black and white
thing. You claim that the bible is the inerrant word of
god. As such it conveys material facts that you must
either accept or reject IN
TOTALITY.
Do you have the raging temerity
to argue that you once questioned and subsequently
rejected EVERYTHING the bible
claims? Do you have the unmitigated
gall to argue that you personally
researched EVERYTHING the
bible claims scientifically, logically, and emotionally only
then to come to the conclusion that those claims were
true in the end? Well, you'd
have to. And then
I'd have to label you a liar...and a very bad one at
that.
The only way you can back up
your position that you don't blindly believe what you're told
about the bible is to claim yourself a schooled expert
in ALL branches of the physical and human sciences, all
branches of mathematics, ancient world history, and
religion. And I'd also have to disregard the amazing
coincidence that you just happened to be right about every
single one of the thousands upon thousands of claims
that you once skeptically scrutinized and rejected. How
incredibly convenient!
And if you were to backpedal
your way to the position that you let other experts in those
areas scrutinize those claims for you and then take their
expert opinion on each matter, then you will have come full
circle back to my claim that you believe what you're
told.
So take your pick. I'm happy with
either path you choose.
Let's take it from the top, just
for the record...
Christians believe
what the bible tells them because the book itself claims to
be...
its own source of
validation
its sole source of validation (societal self-fulfilling prophecies
and apologist delusions discounted)
and the ultimate
and final authority on all matters.
And that's
good enough for them. My assertion stands unshaken.
Q.E.D.
And to be fair, there's nothing
wrong with taking religious claims on faith. I, myself,
take many things on faith -- and I'm comfortable
not having any concrete proof to support them. The only
difference between me and every single Christian apologist on
the planet is that I make no excuses and provide no
explanations to justify or validate what I choose to
believe. They love to argue that they do so to save
souls, and that's pure bullshit. Their motive is driven
by their need to protect their intellect and not seem so
gullible and unintelligent to those who reject their
doctrine. (If you haven't already done so, read all
about their mindless rationalizations to support their motive
here.)
Christian Arrogance
Demonstrated
Silence is Golden: Keep Your
Prayers to Yourself Christians want prayer in public schools,
but not for themselves. It's a deliberate in-your-face
initiative to shove their god crap down the throats of those
who haven't accepted Christ. Period. How do we
know this? Because prayer for the sake of prayer
provides ZERO advantage in school
over anywhere else. However, there are several reasons
why praying elsewhere does provide an
advantage.
Students need to pray with other
students in homeroom before first period?
B U L L S H I T
!
How about praying WITH YOUR OWN FAMILY in the morning
before everyone leaves for the day? Advantage: "The
family that prays together stays together" is your
manta. Now you have an opportunity to live by it.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't even think about offering your
mindless excuses. There are none. Morning prayer
takes 60 seconds, maybe less. (They know what you look
like when you roll out of bed anyway.)
How about stopping by your church
on the way to school? Advantage: IT'S A FUCKING CHURCH. Must I
really explain this one to you? Not enough time, you
say? Um, this is your god we're talking about. If
you're so concerned about salvation and your place in
eternity, then how about setting your god damn alarm clock 30
minutes earlier, you whiny bastard.
How about praying at the bus stop
while waiting for a pickup? Or on the bus perhaps?
Seems like there would be plenty of other students there with
which to share your common beliefs. Advantage: There's
nothing better to do. Waiting for the bus is like
watching flies fuck. At the very least it will provide a
distraction during inclement weather.
How about praying OUTSIDE
the school? That's where you're all going anyway so
you're guaranteed to find others to pray with.
Advantage: Unified crowd control. There are plenty of
authority figures INSIDE the school to monitor and
control the crowd, but outside of the building it's like Lord
of the Flies. A unified prayer session would help the
unruly mob control itself. They'd be up to no good
anyway until the very last second when the bell commands them
in.
But no. You
see, that won't do because outside won't hold a
captive audience. Too many distractions and external
stimuli. This is why Christians want so desperately to
get those prayer sessions inside the
school.
Getting prayer in the
classroom serves but one purpose, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with satisfying a child's
need to connect with god. Period.
But if these bible-punchers
actually took the time to listen to what the book really says
they'd know that even Jesus was against prayer in school (or
any public venue):
And when thou prayest,
thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to
pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the
streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you,
They have their reward. (Matthew
6:5)
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy
closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father
which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall
reward thee openly. (Matthew
6:6)
Relax, panicky Christians.
I know that Jesus in this instance was speaking
figuratively. I give no more credence to the possibility
that he wanted people to actually walk into a closet and pray
than I give to the literal divinity of feces when someone says
"holy shit." I'm neither ignorant nor disingenuous about
this point and can grasp the often gray nature of figurative
speech and the esoteric interpretation of bible
lore.
But, yes, Matthew's recount (for
those who believe that Jesus actually uttered those words) is
crystal clear in its implication that prayer is supposed to be
a perfectly and completely private matter and not to be put on
display. Closets? Who the hell cares about
closets? It's about praying within the privacy of some
venue where it is not forced on those who don't follow
your religion, or within the privacy of your own house of
worship where it is shared with those who do.
And take note that there are no
footnote exceptions to the these words of St. Matthew.
They are absolute. He never said that people should make
a public display of their prayer only when A = B, else it
should be done in secret. So by definition this would
have to include organized and orchestrated prayer in schools,
just to name one of many inappropriate displays of
faith.
I find it funny how
god becomes a poet (speaking figuratively,
metaphorically, and allegorically) when Christian hypocrites
don't like what his words imply if taken literally, which
is ironic because the bible is supposed to be the literal word
of god. You see, Christians will simply not allow god's
word to forbid or impede them from cramming their grand
fantasy bunk down everyone else's
throat.
However, their big bad sky daddy and
his alleged son suddenly become so un-poetic when they
need god's word to be literal, definitive, and absolute
for things like murder, abortion, homosexuality, adultery,
etc., or anything else that seeks to control people or make
them fearful. And they get to decide when and how the
words apply. How wonderfully convenient.
People go to the supermarket to
buy food and various other sundries. They go to the gas
station to fuel their cars. They go to the doctor to get
medical treatment and advice. They go to the auto
mechanic to get their cars fixed. They go to school to
learn chemistry, trigonometry, and English literature.
And they go to church or temple to pray. Praying in
school is like going to the auto mechanic to get medical
advice. Sure, you could do it, but it's not logically
coherent. You could go to the hair salon and sit in the
waiting area just to prepare your yearly tax return.
It's neither wrong nor bad nor immoral, but it doesn't make
any sense either. And I'd wager 10-to-1 you would never
do it unless you were a kook. The same logic applies to
prayer in public venues.
See the Christian argument for
prayer in public schools exactly for what it is. It's a poor and misguided excuse for Christians
to intentionally shove their beliefs in everyone's
face. And if you're to argue that you're
required, as a Christian, to spread the word, make disciples
of all nations, or whatever else you want to call it, know
that you can be a dutiful Christian and do likewise without
public prayer. In the exact same manner, you can sell
diapers to the public without shitting your pants in the store
that sells them just to show everyone how they
work.
Now be an obedient Christian, get
in your closet, and pray for some intellectual
honesty.
Sin: Letting Jesus Pick Up the
Tab Listen
up all you total-absolution zero-accountability Christian
cop-out blame-passers. Pay close attention. Take
copious notes if you must: Your sins are
your own.
Christ (if he ever did exist)
didn't die for them. Take responsibility for your
inadequacies, faults, and screw ups.
Co-dependent and deluded is no
way to go through life. Pay your own fines, you cheap
irresponsible bastard.
That's all I have to say on the
matter. I'm done with you.
Class dismissed.
Intellectual Honesty Test:
A Challenge to
Christians This rant ate up a little too much space
on the page, so I converted it to an Adobe PDF document.
Download a copy
and send to that very special Christian in your life. If
you derive any pleasure from pissing them off or making them
foam at the mouth, send me $1,293.07 (cash only, please) as a
token of your appreciation.
Stupid is as Stupid
Does Ever since I posted the story called Have a Heart (on
the Hypocrisy page), I've received many
letters from people who objected to my written assault on a
virtual stranger who laid his hands upon me to pray and heal
me from a recurrence of cancer. (If you haven't read the
story yet, you might want to do so before
continuing.)
I try to respond to as many
emails as I can, and I must have formulated the same response
to those who have commented on this story at least three dozen
times. So since it draws so much criticism from those
who read it, I figured I might as well make it official and
post my retort here in perpetuity.
The common thread among those who
speak critically of "Have a Heart" is the argument that Tim's
actions were harmless, that I should have just let it slide,
and that I shouldn't have let it "get" to me. And as I
was critical about his deluded belief that Jesus would heal
me, nearly all asked why I cared about what he thought would
happen as a result of his prayers.
I'll address each of these
points in just a moment, but before I do, let me point
out that the story was about Tim's hypocritical logic and
subsequent actions when a stunning case of irony turned the
tables.
Any offense I took was completely incidental,
purely anecdotal, and wholly irrelevant. But in response to my
critics...
First, Tim's actions were indeed
harmless -- but only in my particular
situation. I'm an atheist so nothing he said or did
influenced me one way or another, but that might not have been
the case if I were a person of deep faith, fearful of death,
weak and in search (and in need) of divine intervention.
(I'll get back back to this point shortly.)
Second, I did let it slide (as a
favor to a friend) -- which is clearly stated in the story and
patently obvious to anyone who actually took the time to read
it instead of just reacting to it.
Third, saying that I let an
offensive act "get" to me implies that society should allow
offensive acts to go unchecked. I dismiss all who make
this claim as weak and as enablers of those who offend if they
believe that claim, and (more likely) as hypocrites if they
don't. The rest is a matter of putting them to a test
where the appropriate offensive stimulus is allowed to slap
them upside the head.
Fourth, why do I care what Tim
thought? Well, the answer to that question is the very
essence of this rant. Read on.
The Dumbification of
Society We can probably agree that Tim's actions
(in this one case) harmed no one, but that doesn't make it
appropriate, reasonable, or smart.
Was it appropriate?
Absolutely not! For
one, he was little more than a stranger to me. More
importantly, he KNEW that I wasn't a Christian! He
thought I was a Jew yet forced his act upon me
without even asking if it would be okay. That
made it wholly inappropriate AND offensive even
if it was harmless.
But you know what else would have been
harmless? Tim could have dropped his pants right
there in the middle of that crowded room, squatted over a
bucket, took a shit, held it to the sky as an offering to
Zeus, and asked him to cure my cancer. That too
would have been completely harmless -- albeit quite
repulsive.
Sheer stupidity, even if the act
and words are benign or well-intentioned, should NOT be
tolerated. To do so is to enable and perpetuate the
"dumbification of society." I live in this world too,
and as I am involved in mankind I am
justified in being irked when stupid people do stupid
things. If their stupidity soils the sandbox in
which I must play, then I will give them a moment of pause as
I see fit. You should thank me and do likewise.
After all, you're playing in the same sandbox too.
Imagine some guy who takes his
own money and, for whatever inane reason, buys stock at its
peak and intentionally dumps it all when it bottoms out.
And just for kicks, let's say he has no family to support and
he's free of debt. His actions are completely harmless,
totally benign, absolutely legal, and he's done nothing
immoral by any standard of conduct. His actions are also
profoundly stupid. Anyone who considers himself part of
mankind owes it to society to tap this moron on the shoulder
and set him straight. Period. If nothing else,
don't you think it might be nice to suggest he donate the
money to a worthy charity instead of just pissing it
away? Granted this is an unlikely occurrence, but it
illustrates my point perfectly. An act may be harmless,
but if it's pointless or stupid it shouldn't go
unchecked.
But don't think this stance is
one-sided. Take it from a guy who's done plenty of
stupid things in his life -- many of which were thoroughly
harmless. I wish someone had slapped ME upside the head
and set me straight.
ATTENTION: FAITHLESS PANICKY
CHRISTIANS
This is the
part where you're supposed to get clever and play right
back at me. Here, I'll help you out. Just
copy and paste the text below into an email and click
Send:
"Mr.
Bastard, we're giving YOU a moment of pause because your
own stupidity is causing you to reject god and
Jesus. Don't be mad. You should thank us, in
fact. We're just doing what you told us to
do. This is YOUR slap upside the
head."
I could fairly argue
that tossing another moronic act onto the growing heap of
societal stupidity is harmful in a "big picture" kind
of way, but I suppose some imbecile who wants to purposefully
throw his money out the window (even at the expense of feeding
a homeless person or sending a poor inner-city kid to college)
isn't the worst thing imaginable. So let's look at
something that is, shall we?
Terminal
Faith Back in June of 1999, a friend and former
co-worker of mine died from a relapse of breast cancer.
Donna and I met just over a year prior when she first came to
work for the company. Because of our common bond as
cancer survivor, as well as our twisted sense of humor, we
fast became friends. She (a mom and grandmother) was
quite a bit older than me, but we saw each other as
contemporaries and enjoyed the company of one
another.
Shortly before joining the
company Donna recuperated from a long bout with her
disease. Medically speaking, she was put through the
wringer: chemo, radiation, and a radical mastectomy.
Fortunately, the battle was a worthwhile endeavor. Her
cancer went in remission and she quickly returned to work and
her normal routine.
A very common problem for cancer
survivors is that many are so afraid of relapsing that they
refuse to go for follow-up exams. The exams themselves
are quick and painless. There's a physical exam, some
blood work, and one or two non-invasive diagnostics (like an
x-ray or CT scan) to monitor the body for recurrence.
But the fear of hearing bad news is too much for some to
handle, so they shift into "out of sight, out of mind"
mode. You know, ignorance is bliss. This was the
case with Donna.
Further complicating this setup
for disaster, Donna was a woman of deep faith and believed
that Jesus was watching over her and that the prayers of
friends and family would keep her health in good
standing.
While I never met the "Tim" in
her life, his (or her) actions were partly to blame for
Donna's premature demise. Yes, of course, Donna bore
ultimate responsibility for her fate, but most people fighting
a life-threatening illness are afraid, vulnerable, and
desperately searching for a way to cope with the awful hand
they were dealt -- and justifiably so.
I'm not making excuses for her,
but someone fed Donna a divine pipedream, and it's hard for
even the most devout people who aren't in distress to
turn down a favor from god. Avoidance is the worst
possible coping method for those in this kind of predicament,
and idiots like Tim serve up a heaping helping of avoidance to
desperate, hungry souls.
Tim's "laying of hands" seem
harmless now? Um, I don't think so. Was he well
intentioned? I'm sure he was, but that's wholly
irrelevant. And I couldn't care less.
There's no excuse
for allowing stupidity to go unchecked. Ever.
I constantly hammered at Donna to
get her ass to the hospital, but she made up excuse after
excuse -- each one peppered with her self-reinforced delusion
that the prayers of friends (and the watchful eye and loving
heart of god) would keep her alive and kicking. I
actually had to find her a local oncologist, set up an
appointment, and threaten to drive all the way to Bakersfield
(about 100 miles) to personally drag her (by force, if
necessary) to the doctor before she actually agreed to
go. Eventually she did.
I'm sure there's no need for me
to finish this story as you already know how it ended for poor
Donna. She was my friend and I cared for her deeply, but
her stupid avoidant behavior probably contributed to
her premature death. Shame on her.
I acknowledge that there were
several factors that led to her demise, but know that someone
just like Tim (and his "harmless" act) fueled an already
unstable yet controllable fire. His pointless prayers
fell upon death ears. Sadly, Donna was counting on
them. Shame on him.
If more people gave others a
moment of pause when they engaged in (even seemingly) foolish
acts, the offenders might think twice before engaging in those
acts again. Anything else enables them to continue on
and reinforces their negative behavior -- sometimes even with
positive reward, although not in this one case. In
Donna's case it might very well have saved her life. I
blame the idiots who numbed her fear of relapsing with prayers
of healing. I suppose I blame Donna a bit
too.
No One Likes to Agree with
the Bastard (Even When They Really
Do) Virtually all theists agree with much of
what I say when I speak critically of beliefs. They just
hate to (and generally won't) admit it. No
problem. I totally get that. It's an
intellect-saving thing. But I often receive letters from
atheists (and other skeptics) who openly agree with what I
say, but they don't like the way I say it. Um,
boo-hoo. The Bastard don't roll that way. And
often they try to diffuse their agreement with me with by
playing the "Why don't you take moral high-ground?" card, or
suggesting that I become a "kinder, gentler"
bastard.
Here's a letter from a really
sweet woman I met (we have a mutual friend) with whom I shared
a fun debate (about the Tim incident) several months
ago. She and I occasionally interact on a social level
and I think she's awesome. But even friends can have a
spirited exchange of emphatic opposition. Below is the
first of a few letters we swapped before we actually met in
person. Her letter is in black and my commentary is
in [bold red].
My name is
[name
withheld]. I'm a friend of [name withheld] and
being a philosopher, she thought I would find interest
in your website.
First of all
I must say I didn't read everything [understatement of the Millennium
as you will see...] so I might have
missed something that's relevant to my remarks, but for
what I read I have some thoughts/comments and I know you
don't mind them, so:
I don't
believe in god (or the god I was raised to believe in –
the god of the sons of Israel), I guess you could call
me agnostic. [If you
don't believe in god then you, by definition, are an
atheist. Agnostics question the existence of
god.] I don't accept anything as an
axiom, I keep asking a lot of questions to which I might
never get answers, and it's ok, it's the journey that
matters. So I'm not an advocate for god or anything BUT
having read your words I think you mix a few
things:
Your stories
about hypocrisy and all your "accusations" refer to
people not God –- how people interpret god. Correct.
[Good. You're paying
attention.] I don't accuse god of
anything because he doesn't exist. I also don't blame
Bugs Bunny for anything for the exact same reason.
You don't believe that god exists because Tim was being
a hypocrite? I wonder. [Huh? That makes no sense. One has nothing
to do with another. I don't believe in god because it's
a patently silly concept. Tim's a hypocrite regardless
of what I think or believe.]
You
specifically talk about Jesus and the Evangelical
Christians. [Correct.
I mentioned this on the very first page of this
site. I also explained why I chose to focus on
evangelicals. At least you're paying
attention!] But the concept of god is
way wider than this one person and his followers. [Really? I never knew
that! I must have slept through all those years of
Hebrew school.] As
you well know, Jesus himself was
Jewish. [Then why did
his parents give him a Puerto Rican
name?] He is supposedly the king
Messiah, the son of god. Personally I see Jesus as a
prophet, same as others throughout history, but only a
specific group pf people see him as god. The Muslims and
the Jews (and others) don't, and yet they believe in
god. So who is this god and does he exist? I'm not
saying he does, I'm not saying he doesn't. Some people
feel safer in their faith that he exists and that's fine
for them. I don't need him and his rules to lead my
life. [Thanks for the
lesson in theology and your personal take on matters of
faith.]
You wrote
about your sensations towards Tim and how furious you
were. Why? [Well, I never used the word furious, but okay. I
get furious (or irked or whatever other word makes you
feel better about your argument) when foolish people do
or say foolish things that involve me against my will.
When I overhear some scumbag refer to a black person as
a nigger I get furious, too -- and I respond
accordingly. Too bad you don't. (Or do you?) And in case
you're inclined to tender a "Why can't you
respond in a kinder, calmer tone and take the moral
high-ground..." argument, it won't win any points
with me. Subjectively harsh and offensive things
sometimes demand and deserve an equally harsh and
emphatic response. And I know I you'd prove my assertion
by personal demonstration given the proper
stimulus. We'd just have to find and push the all
the right buttons. FYI, this woman
is Israeli, and
anyone who knows an Israeli isn't buying her "why are
you getting so bent out of shape"
criticality.]
He believes
in Jesus, you don't. Period. Why did you let yourself be
involved and vulnerable to his actions? [That's very faulty logic. Let's
swap ideologies and remove me and Tim from the example.
Take a meat eater and a vegan. One eats flesh, one
doesn't. Period. So what? It's a pointless thing to
point out. If the meat eater shoves a burger in the face
of someone they KNOW is a vegan and offers a bite, the
offense to the vegan is extreme. Why don't you try it
sometime and see how they respond? Tim's belief in Jesus
(and my rejection of it) is completely incidental and,
therefore, irrelevant. His act was offensive and
repulsive to me. Forcing an offensive act upon another
is worthy of an equally emphatic response. Let's see a
racist lecture your child on the merits of ethnic
cleansing (acceptable and benign to the racist, and
offensive to you, I'm sure), and let's just see how
benign your response is. Those who leave such offenses
unchecked condone, enable, and guarantee perpetuation of
them. I'd choose to give a harsh moment of pause. It's
such a shame that you wouldn't do likewise. This is
where you flip-flop and agree with me, or turn hypocrite
and seek shelter behind the "that's not the same"
mantra. Sorry, but it is the
same.]
One of my
professors has an interesting thing to say about offense
which I would like to adapt to your situation. [Okay, I have to cut you
off right here. He's a teacher.
Throwing around the term
"professor" doesn't make him
an authority.]
It's not called "taking offense" for
nothing. The offended person is an active participant in
the act of offense. If someone says something to you
that is supposedly offensive you have two choices: to
take the offense and engage in this activity (of
offending yourself), or to leave it untaken (by not
being offended). [If
your professor doesn't allow himself to "be offended"
then he is a coward and an enabler. Physical pain tells
your body to stop doing what it's doing. Likewise,
"offense" tells your moral compass to do what's right
(to you). The right thing would have been to give Tim a
moment of pause and let him know that forcing an
invocation of the spirit of Christ by the laying of
hands upon a Jew is a profoundly offensive and
inappropriate act, especially in light of the
person having just received the news of a cancer
relapse.]
I am sure
that Tim really cared about your health [no, you're not]
and he did the only thing he knew (or thought he knew).
[Irrelevant. My
response would be the same whether he was or
wasn't.] Yes he was
ignorant and narrow-minded (See?
Everyone does agree with me. They just don't
like admitting it, so they issue all these
disclaimers.] but
why should you care and let him get to you when you know
your truth? [First, I didn't "let"
him do anything. Again, would you just walk your child
away from the racist (after he spewed his venom upon
your child's ear) without offense, basking in the
reality that you knew your truth. Would you just let it
go? Any response other than "no" will be taken as a
thoroughly disingenuous answer. No, you
wouldn't. And you'd be a very bad parent if you
did. It would get to you as any other offensive thing
would.]
It is not my
job to analyze your approach or your behavior
[but you're doing so
anyway] but I must say that I sensed
anger and frustration in your words. [How perceptive you
are!] You strike me as an intelligent
person [No, I'm
fucking brilliant...] and you surely
have a lot to say but have you ever stopped to think
what your motivations were? [I know exactly what my motivations are, and
I spelled them out explicitly on the very first page of
this site.] Being sarcastic is a virtue
[It's also a
talent...] but you have to examine
where/what it stems from. [If you actually READ the site instead of just
REACTING to it you'd know exactly what it stems from --
and you probably wouldn't have rambled on as you have
for three pages now. But you didn't read the site; you
merely reacted to what you expected to see. Instead
you're allowing YOUR motivations to guide your
words. And if you really did read the site, then
either your reading comprehension is very poor or you're
hearing only what you want to hear. I'm aware of what
you do for a living (from prior communications), so no
doubt there's also some subconscious self-validation in
play.] You can convey the same message
when it's clear that it's just an angry kid yelling all
the no's and do not's or as someone who really examined
and processed his thoughts so now others can get it,
even if they don't accept it. [Okay, so it's clear you really
haven't read the site and just don't "get" it. You are
forgiven.]
You know, maybe it would be nice
[calliope music playing in the background] if we all lived in
this perfect little world where we all got along and treated
each other nicely and with blind civility and respect for
ideas and perspectives and blah, blah, blah...but we
don't. Truth is, we
live in a world of idiots -- many of which believe in,
promote, enable, and perpetuate dangerous (as well as benign)
acts and ideologies.
I don't think that stupidity
should receive a hall pass just because no one gets
hurt. Even benign, well-intentioned stupidity hurts
society in the long run. But well-intentioned or
not, stupidity should be
dealt with accordingly.
The hypocrisy from people
who agree with me fundamentally but don't care much for my
delivery is staggering. When posed with the scenario of
a racist who starts preaching (non-violent) viewpoints to
their children, all of a sudden the "why can't you just take
the moral high-ground, ignore them, and walk away secure with
your truth" fades into oblivion.
