Why Do I Talk About Religion So Much?

This should be a really long post because I have a lot to say, but I think it will be a really short one because I'm tired. Maybe I'll decide to write more in-depth on bits later, but I wanted to get this basic gist out.

People ask me, and I'm sure others wonder and don't ask, why I spend so much time and energy talking about, reading about, joking about, making fun of, mocking, and thinking about a God I don't believe exists.

I know many people think it's proof that I really do believe, and am just, I don't know, fighting it or something. Some probably figure I'm just trying to make others mad. Or that the devil is doing this through me to drag others down. (Yeah, I'm aware some of you think I somehow forcibly converted my husband.)

Look, "Why do you talk about God so much?" is a question most atheists get a lot of. The following is my answer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

I talk about religion, and by extension, God, because religious beliefs, ones that aren't even mine, are a large part of my existence.

In fact, Christianity in particular affects me more today than it ever did when I believed, in an a more invasive way. (I am not going to do a long address to the question of why I 'only pick on' Christianity; just for now understand it's the one that affects me most of the time.)

Christianity worms its way into everything. Everything.

-Public schools.

-The pledge of allegiance, which is creepy enough without throwing a forced reference to one religion's deity in. (PS- you probably know, because you're smart, that there wasn't any God in the original pledge. Right?)

-Money. Do you know how ridiculous that is? I swear, someone should make one of those stamps, one that gives a veryshortform version of Jesus tossing the banking tables in the temple, and start stamping it on dollars. Seriously, you think that guy wants represented on your cash?

-Government. We have a national day of prayer. Our elected officials go out and hold prayer meetings, on the taxpayer dime. That means that the Jewish people in your town, the atheist people in your town, the Muslim people in your town- they're all FUNDING your religious ceremony. So not cool.

-Morality. Religion gets to hijack morality. People get to say that I can't be moral if I don't follow their God. "Well, where do you get your morals from, then?" People decide whether someone is moral based on his beliefs. Is he okay to date your daughter? "Well, he goes to church, he's a good Christian boy, he's fine."

-Sexuality. You think you get to tell me who I should be attracted to, who I should have sex with, how often, when, and why, based on your favorite book?

And there's more, but that's about all I have time to list tonight.

But let me give you an analogy, okay? Let's say that you don't believe in unicorns, but everyone else around you talks about unicorns basically nonstop. Let's say that your kids hear about unicorns at school, and get mocked or condemned for not believing in them. Let's say that when we have a presidential race, you hear people debating about what kind of unicorn the candidates have. People ask you about your pet unicorn. When you say you don't have a pet unicorn, your pregnancy care provider, of all the effing people, tries to sell you hers. You say you don't believe in unicorns, and she scolds you, and insists you come see her unicorn.

At some point, you start feeling kinda like you're being punked. How can so many people be so damned hung up on unicorns? I'm looking around, folks, I don't see any unicorns! So, you smile and try to just be nice about the unicorns. (Maybe you wonder if you're going crazy, until, thankfully, you meet some other aunicornists out in the world and learn you're not alone after all.)

But more and more, you find that other people's belief in unicorns is affecting your life.

Well, I kinda feel like you'd talk about unicorns, and probably kind of a lot.

Babies In Suits - How Does That Work?

I needed a shirt to put on the baby, and I amused myself by selecting one that belonged to one of the bigger kids.

This led to the idea that I might do a photo like those 'baby in a suit' ones, but with big kid clothes, instead of a suit. I don't know where I'd find a suit.

So, I collected a 6 month old baby, a shirt sized for a 7yo, a pair of pants for a 10yo, and my phone, and headed for my bed to lay the photo out.

I put the baby in the shirt. I am not sure if the normal method in the suit pictures is to put the baby in the shirt or lay it over him, but I was putting the oversized shirt on him anyway, at least until I could locate a smaller one, so I just did.

In a suit, the shirt would presumably have covered his feet, and I could have just placed the pants on the bed below. This shirt did not cover the baby's feet, so I tucked his legs into the pants.

Okay, so far, so good. But then he started moving.

Which quickly proceeded into pants-eating.

I got the pants flat, and snapped a quick shot, but he was distracted and wouldn't look at me.

Ideally, at this point, I would have started the process of taking 8-12 photos in a row, adjusting my angle, calling his name, moving to different places, in hopes of catching one in which he was looking at me (maybe even smiling), not moving and blurry, and with a good angle and lighting.

Alas, it was not to be. Before my phone could adjust for the second shot, he was gone, back-crawling right out of the pants.

Doing the awkward roll-over:

Hi, Mom.

Oh, look, a book. That looks way more interesting than those pants.

So, baby-in-a-suit was not to be, nor was baby-in-big-kid-clothing. Maybe a different day.

Dreaming Through The Culture Wars

Ever have that dream where you're naked in school, standing at the front of the classroom, trying to give a report you've forgotten to write?

Last night, I had one that was just as embarrassing- I accidentally went into a Chik-Fil-A and started to order.

I was wandering through the mall, with a group of people I haven't seen since high school. We were pretty clearly on a class trip.

I was playing with my phone, which I broke yesterday (in the waking world, in real life), trying to get a text sent. Since the bottom third of the touch screen no longer works, that requires flipping it back and forth to get to parts of the on-screen keyboard.

I followed my friend into the food court, and she said something like, "You wanna go to the chicken place?"

I didn't even look up, just muttered, "Okay, yeah," and followed.

I got to the counter, realized it was my turn, and started looking at the menu. I couldn't find anything that appealed to me, and I asked, "Don't you have, like, nuggets?"

The server showed me a box of nuggets, and they were small and squarish, and they looked familiar in an odd way.

I looked around- no company name to be found inside the alcove, but there were cows. Cows....cows in a chicken place had to mean.......I yelped a little, and literally ran out of the place, into the shop directly across, not even caring what it was.

I ordered nuggets there, and looked around. Oddly, their nuggets were shaped like little penises, and there was a jar full of pickles on the counter that all looked like penises.

One of my classmates walked in and said, "Eating in this place always turns me on."

A cousin who I won't name lest I embarrass or anger him-or-her came in behind him, saying, "Yeah, me too, I love the pickles!"

And I stood there, leaning against the counter, worrying that someone might have seen me in the Chik-Fil-A and might think I supported them.

So then I realized, the obvious answer to that was to eat this restaurant's very distinctively shaped food out in the open, in the middle of the mall, which would ensure that no one had any questions what I supported.

And yeah, as a matter of fact, I live in an age where it's less embarrassing to gobble penis pickles in the middle of a mall concourse than to be seen at Chik-Fil-A.

Thoughts On Creationism, Persecution, And Christianity

Today I stumbled across an article that talked about Creationism as a cult, rather than 'real' Christianity.

Now, I have some issues with this. Mainly, the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy- you simply do not get to decide that people are not Christians just because you don't want to be represented by them, no matter whether the people in question are the Westboro Baptists, Ken Ham, Creationists, or progressive Christians who believe in treating gay people fairly and letting women wear pants and speak in church.

Just because they aren't in the same slot as you, doesn't mean you get to deny them their chosen categorization- any more than they get to deny you yours.

Anyway, that's not the point.

I saw a line further on that intrigued me.

When I attack creationists, they think I’m attacking Christianity – which isn’t true at all. 

 My mind immediately went off on two separate tracks.

One was, well, dude, you kinda are. Because a  Gallup Poll from 2011 says that about 30% of people in the U.S. take their Bible literally. I think there's a more recent poll than that, but couldn't find it.

I did find some from a few years earlier, that show higher percents, suggesting that the number is dropping, but honestly, 3 in 10 is a lot of people. And I feel like I remember the more recent one I saw showing an increase, but since I can't find it, don't quote me.

So yeah, if you insult Biblical literalism, there's a maybe one in three chance that the person listening is a follower of the beliefs you're talking about.

If you already know the person in question is a Christian, then your chances increase further, since presumably all non-Christians fall into the other 7-in-10.



The other thought was, DUDE, YES! And if I say something against Biblical literalism, then I am sure to not only piss off my Biblical literalist friends, but also a lot of non-literalist Christian friends, who will jump in with a "Not all Christians believe that!" (Side note: I don't claim I've never over-generalized, nor that I've always known Christians who weren't Biblical literalists existed. I've been aware of that fact for approximately 1/3 of my life. As for the rest, I still get these responses when I don't generalize, no matter how specific I am. I do try very hard these days not to generalize.)


Right now, I'm writing a novelette that mocks the idea of Christian persecution as a major problem in America. It is not intended to suggest Christians are not ever persecuted, that no one has ever been mocked for religion in America, or that those who do do face discrimination for being Christian should be ignored or their experiences diminished- it merely attacks the idea that the majority belief system in the U.S. is under constant attack and persecution.

I haven't seen God's Not Dead yet. I won't, probably, until I can do so on my tv screen for  free or cheap. I don't like theaters, and I don't like paying big bucks for them.

Especially to see a movie that, by all accounts, is less a pro-Christian than an anti-non-Christian one.

But you can see how, in that movie, this myth is leaned on- the poor Christian is told by his professor to write down that God is dead- a ridiculous premise, since no atheist believes God is dead. We believe he never lived, doesn't exist- would you insist that someone 'admit' that Santa or unicorns are dead? It's silly.

And, there is a big difference between attacking an idea and attacking people, in my opinion.

Still, when my novelette is done, I reckon some people are going to be upset. They won't see 'Christianity as a persecuted minority is a ridiculous notion,' they'll see 'making fun of silly Christians'.

Well, that's not my intent, but I do see that it's going to happen, and I do accept it.

On Sexuality And Perception Of Sexuality And People

Note: I wrote this a week or so ago and left it in draft form until I found the guts to publish it. After Ellen Page's coming out tonight, I decided I can do it. (I ADORE EP. She is high on my list of favorite people.)

Sometimes I see stories about people 'coming out' as gay, and I think about how we don't really see coming out stories much of bi people.

But then I think, probably that's not so much about whether bi people come out, but more about how we see people as so binary: she has a girlfriend, clearly she is gay, she has a husband, obviously she's straight, both are neatly in their boxes and that's where we want them, so it's all good.

Except, especially since I've written a couple of articles lately about transgender people/issues/legislation, I've been thinking about how binary people aren't.

But it's so much about what people see externalized, right, like, if you're bi but you're in a long-term monogamous relationship with an opposite-sex person and intend to stay that way, what reason is there to come out?

Except, somebody's got to make people see, you know, that everybody doesn't fit in your boxes. You don't get to look at this guy and say, oh, he has sex with girls, oh, that guy over there kisses dudes, this woman likes ladies, this woman prefers men. Because you're categorizing some of them wrong, you know? Some of them are into sex with both or neither or don't even know, right?

WHAT what the hell did I just say?

You need to know that this one girl is bi, because when you look at her and go, oh, she likes dick, you're only telling half her story? What? No. First of all, that's a fraction, not a half, of her story, and second, wtf are you doing categorizing who she is based on her sex stuff?

That's so weird, like, what if you were dividing people up that way like, oh, that's the principal, she likes black dildos, oh, that's the grocery store clerk who gets off on sitting on ziploc bags of crushed ice, oh, that's my preacher, he only does it in the dark. Can you even imagine if you were thinking about all those people's sex lives every time you looked at them?

Except, when you go, Oh, yeah, that's my gay friend, oh, yeah, that's the gay teacher, oh, that cashier, he's gay.....well isn't that what you're doing? Categorizing them by some aspect of how they live their sex lives and their love lives?

Except notice how there were no, "Oh, that's that straight guy I know" stories in there? That's because you mostly only do that to gay folks.

So then I'm like, damn, man, I'm really glad I'm married to a dude and present as totally cis, because it must be uncomfortable to have people think about your sex life every time they interact with you.

Wait, did I seriously just say I'm glad nobody can see my non-straight-ness, because it means I don't have to deal with the things so many other not-straight people have to deal with?

That is a seriously sucky attitude.

Then I think, but I'm married to a dude, if I came out as bi, what would be the point? I mean, I'm not looking for a girl, any more than I'm looking for another guy. It would only be weird, right?And it's so much easier not to.

And then I think, AND if I did, I'd have to go through that thing where some people think about your genitals and what you like to do with them every time they look at you. And I'm so much more than my genitals! I'm all my thoughts, and all my non-sexual entertainments like reading and writing and playing with my kids and badozens of things that have nothing to do with sex, and why would I come out and let people turn me into nothing more than my love life?

Here's why: because there are people who don't have the choice. There are people who, if they don't come out, won't be able to be with the person they love. There are people who have to choose between coming out or living a lie. Coming out or staying alone.

Plus, the thing that's going to make non-straight people stop being diminished to nothing but a caricature of their sexuality is more people coming out, making non-cis sexualities more mainstream and less of a 'special' or 'unusual' case, right?

Plus, is it any less 'living a lie' if nobody can ever tell?

So, to those outside the small handful of friends who already knew it, hello, world, my name is Stephanie, and I am bisexual.

FYI: If You're Blogging About How Other People Should Portray Themselves on Social Media

 This article about how girls should handle themselves on social media has been going around, and I read a response to it this morning- actually, before I read the actual article- that had some good thoughts, but I wanted to try to put my own thoughts and words down about it.

First of all, it's mildly weird and creepy that you, lady, and your husband, are going through facebook photos of people you aren't facebook friends with. When the photos are public, we refer to that as as 'creeping' or 'photo stalking'. And it's something people do but it's a little weird. If you're doing it by logging into someone else's account or looking over their shoulder, and they are photos you normally wouldn't be able to see due to privacy settings, it's even creepier.

Because, see, for instance, when I post a photo....oh, let's say of my kids, and I set the privacy settings to 'friends only', I am aware that others might see it- after all, the internet is the internet- but my *intent* is only to share it with my friends. If my friend in turn shares it (for instance, my facebook friends include an aunt who might share photos to brag to her friends about her adorable great-nephew), then it gets seen by others, yes. If, however, her friend breaks into said aunt's facebook account to see my kid's photos, that's a different thing, and weird. If said aunt is looking at facebook and says, "Hey, friend, come look over my shoulder at my my great-nephew," that's closer to the first scenario, but if said friend is insisting on viewing, then that scoots it back toward the more creepy end of the spectrum again.

That said, I do make the assumption that my kids' friends' parents supervise their internet use, and thus that they see anything my kids post, and I accept that, but it still makes my stomach feel funny to hear that you actively go through your kids' friends' photos.

Second, I notice you're starting right out by putting genders in boxes- your little girl points out the pretty rooms, girly details, boys smell like stinky cheese. Okay.

And then to the main point. You are concerned about how girls are portraying themselves on the faceybook.

And hey, how people portray themselves on social media, that's a thing that matters. I mean, we've seen people lose their jobs over things they posted on facebook. We've seen people do stupid things like admit to crimes on social media, or share photos of themselves abusing children or animals. Some of us have accidentally sent something to facebook from our phones that we meant to send to only one person. (Luckily when I did it, it was a pretty minor thing, both times, not something that endangered or embarrassed me, just something that I hadn't meant to make even semi-public.) And yeah, stuff you put on the internet, that stuff has a pretty high risk of not ever going away. That photo you change your mind about and delete, maybe five of your friends have already saved copies to their hard drives. Some of your friends get your statuses by text, so that post you delete is likely on several phones still (well, depending on how interesting you are and how many people get your statuses that way).

So let's talk to our kids about privacy, and about whether you want people who aren't on your friend list to see your posts (and if not, think twice about posting them, no matter what your settings are), and about whether you'd feel okay with so-and-so who is currently on your friend list still having a copy of that photo on his or her computer if the two of you have a drama and an unfriending next week. That's good stuff. Think about what you put out, whether it's on facebook or your t-shirt or your book cover or your spoken-out-loud words in public.

But then, well, the problem comes in because you're imposing *your* ideas of what's okay to share on people who just aren't *you*.

So, like, you don't think photos in a pajama top should be on facebook. What you get to do here is, not post photos of you in a pajama top, and even not allow your kids to do so (although I notice you don't have a problem with your own kids' shirtless photos on the internet, so clearly we have a double-standard going on to begin with.)

See, there are things I don't think should be on facebook. So what I do is, I don't put them on facebook. If you put them on facebook, I might hide it in my feed or comment on it or just choose not to look. Sometimes, I say, hey wait a minute, Steph, you're making a mistake here, you get to post what you like and so does this other person.

In fact, I'm going to admit something- sometimes I fall into the slut-shaming trap.

Sometimes, I think, "What is she thinking? Does she not know this is facebook?" and then I catch myself at that and I say, Hey, wait a minute, Steph, that's not cool. You get to choose what amounts of *your* flesh shows, but that flesh is not your flesh, it is her flesh, and she gets to decide what to do with it.

Sometimes I see photos and I think things like, "It really makes me sad that she obviously thinks looking a certain way is the most important thing she can do." Like, as in, here's this smart, funny, incredible person, and the most important thing she can think of to represent herself on facebook is how she did her hair or her makeup or how she looks in her new dress? Tsk. And then I give myself the mental slap in the face, and say hey wait, scroll scroll, oops, no, that's not the only part of herself she's sharing, look at this, she also talked about her day at school and her plans for the weekend. Just because the photo is what I'm looking at doesn't mean it's the sum total of what she thinks of herself or how she wants to portray herself. Her body, her face, and her hair are a part of her, and she gets to choose to share that part. In fact, even if she *only* shares photos, that doesn't mean she thinks that's the most important thing about her- maybe it's the part she doesn't feel vulnerable about and is comfortable sharing. Maybe she considers her *thoughts* deeply personal and private, but her outward appearance is a thing that people see all the time, so it's less so. Either way, the interesting thing is, *why* she shares what she shares is not actually any of my business.

Now, here's what you *do* get to do. You get to educate *your* kids on what you think is right and on how to portray themselves, and how to handle other people's portrayals. You get to teach your son to look at more than the photos. You get to teach him that even if some girl dances naked in front of him, she's not just a body but a human being with thoughts and feelings and humanity. You get to teach your daughter the same things! You get to teach all of them the same thing about guys, too, because an interesting thing is that this applies to everyone. You get to teach them how to look at a whole person, not just their skin!

I mean, you might have to learn it yourself first. But give it a try, it's actually really worth it.

Judging Intelligence on Small Factors

Once upon a time Skylar was not yet two years old and I took him in with me for a WIC appointment. Now, the WIC nurses where we were living at the time were mighty different from the ones in Columbia, so I'd like to emphasize that this does not imply anything about WIC nurses in general and that it certainly doesn't relate to the ones here. This particular WIC nurse was pretty short with people as a matter of course. She had already been nasty to me and to Skylar enough times that I thought of her privately as WICked.

On this particular day, she was angry at Skylar, because after she had told me that finger pricks don't hurt, and that only kids who are old enough to expect them to hurt even cry, and that Skylar would therefore not, he had cried upon receiving one. Now, he was gripping his bandaided finger while sitting in my lap. His bandaided middle finger. Well, this woman got into her head that he was quite deliberately showing her that particular finger- again, this child who was still not even fully verbal, was taking advantage of the fact that his middle finger was the one pricked in order to have an excuse to make a rude gesture.

So, she called him over, and took his bandaid off, and gave it to him, and told him to put it in the garbage. When he just looked at her, she repeated the order. She would not listen to me explaining that he knew the word 'trash', not 'garbage'. She just kept insisting to him that he must go put it in the garbage, it was only giving him an excuse to cry and be bad, he'd cried long enough, go put it in the garbage.

(I'll divert for a second to say, I should've gotten up and walked out and placed a complaint at some point during this, but I wasn't aware enough or assertive enough at the time to do so.)

So, anyway, she later informed me that he seemed to be delayed, because a child his age should be able to follow simple commands like 'throw it in the garbage'. Skylar normally threw trash away when told, but again, she refused to listen to the fact that he just hadn't been exposed to the word 'garbage'.

Anyway, my point here is not that the WIC nurse was an utter bitch.

My point is how easy it is, if you don't care enough to look beyond the surface, or listen for a second, to confuse lack of exposure to certain information with stupidity or slowness. How easy it is to decide someone is beneath you or lacking in some way, because they don't know some minor fact you personally take for granted. I've watched for this in people since, and it happens a lot- you see that I don't know the name of the new computer program, and therefore you assume I don't know how to go online, or you see that I'm not familiar with a certain book or movie and assume I'm ignorant of the whole subject. It happens an incredible lot to kids.

The funny thing is,Skylar is really bright. Like, not just I'm-his-mom-so-I-think-he's-smart bright, but honest-to-goodness exceptional, frighteningly exceptional. And yet, if I took him back and let him carry on a conversation with that same woman today, she'd never be able to see it, even if he talked to her about algebra and science and what he's been reading lately, because she saw that one word he didn't know, and she made up her mind.