Juxtaposition 235: Cthuluh, Jack Chick and Child Abuse

Update: Dan J, in his total awesomeness, managed to find a link to a PDF of the Cthuluh tract at the artist's web site... Thanks Dan. I would also like to heartily recommend giving his latest post a read - I can't help but be terribly pleased to find that someone else came up with a rather more "profane" rant than I did - and a very good one at that. He makes several points that I will delve into at some point in the relatively near future - I am more than a little fucking tired of this bullshit notion that we should accept dangerous behaviors and decision making from people, that we wouldn't accept under any other circumstances, simply because there is religion involved.

As Dan so eloquently puts it; Fuck Them!!!

It is terribly amusing to me, that at the same time I managed to get into an argument with someone about Tiamat and the fact that Cthuluh is really cause for far more concern, because frankly Cthuluh wouldn't kick Tiamat's ass - h'd jst fckng eat hr, I also noted this delicious little tidbit posted at Pharyngula. I found it while perusing a few blogs that were involved in the crushing of my hopes for Canadian healthcare. I have a rather dark sense of humor, so I thought it was more than a little amusing. But when I was talking about it with my dearest Juniper, I realized that there is an element to the humor that one is likely to miss, if they never experienced Chick Tracts when they were a child. In a most unfortunate turn, it seems that the old tracts aren't available online and the new ones aren't quite on a par with the ones I was exposed to as a child, but I did find a couple that provide a decent taste. "The Beast" shows a common theme that runs through many of these tracts, providing up with a glimpse of what we can expect in these "end times." There were a lot of scenes that showed us what hell was like, showed Satan as a deceiver and even several that talked about specific demons and types of demons.

Juniper just didn't find the Cthuluh tract nearly so amusing at the end - it is, I will grant, rather disturbing. But honestly, it is not the least bit more disturbing than a lot of the Chick tracts are and were even moreso when I was growing up. And when I was four, five and six, I read Chick tracts all the time. There were scads of them at church and I happened to be rather adept at ferreting about in the sorts of places they got stored. They were comics, which are just lovely fun for a child and no one thought anything of seeing any of us kids reading these abominations. Never mind the demons and souls and brutal destruction of life and property - it was all for the greater biblical good of raising good Christian children. It was also a hell of a indoctrination tool. And it is ever so useful for a small child to get a headstart in understanding demonology.

During this same conversation, Juniper and I got to discussing my parochial school experience - it actually came up when I casually mentioned being paddled by the principle fairly regular like. It occurred to her that this was a very good expression of this concept of arationality that I have been on about, since I first noted it's use by that albino gorilla, John Wilkins. Because I think it's important to recognize that a great deal of creationist and general religious thinking falls outside the purview of the rational/irrational dichotomy - though my opinion about the value of that understanding would probably differ fairly significantly from John's. So picture a bit of my life, if you will and see just how irrational my thinking was as a child and how irrational much of my adult life has been...

Fast forward to the third grade - I have been steeped in such brilliance as those older Chick Tracts. I am firmly entrenched in the terrorizing Belief that my dad and other people I love quite dearly are bound for eternal torment in hell, unless they accept my god in their lives. I am already a "Royal Ranger," the scout group that is part of the Pentecostal, fundamentalist church my mom and I are attending. And now I am getting set to start school at the same church. Without five days a week of elementary school, I am spending the vast majority of my time in this church. I'm in the choir, I am there on Weds for Royal Rangers, I am often there on Sat, for events involving both and there are a lot of activities happening throughout the summer. And now I am going to be there for school. Where I will learn some academics - and a whole lot more of the religious nonsense - six, often seven days a fucking week.

I was rather cleverer than the average bear, no question. But all the cleverness in the world is for naught, when all that is going in is filtered through rather extreme dogma. I was, at one point, taught that intellectualism was another religion - much like evolution - a tool of Satan. I was taught that I needed to focus all of that intellectual acuity on things that fostered my faith and the faith of others. My dad ran a strong counterpoint to the notion that focusing much of my intellectual acumen on anything not within the purview of my faith was wrong. But that didn't stop me from developing some rather deep seated shame - shame that would ease up from the recesses of my mind, to make me rather frustrated with myself - possibly even ashamed of myself, whenever I allowed my intellect to be wasted on anything that didn't bring glory to my god. After all, God had given me this intellect - how dare I ever waste it on the world...

Chris Mooney wonders, in his reply to me, why the realm of moderate faith isn't a reasonable place for fundies like I was to end up - at least for a while. Why I shouldn't, in spite of my anger, recognize that this is better for that person than being a fundie. Well here's the problem with that...

I have always been an insatiably curious person - I was curious before my infant eyes could clearly view the world around me, I was curious when my brother taught me to read at two, I was curious and I was clever. I was also pervasively lied to for many years - lies made no less egregious because those inundating me with them believed the lies themselves. I was taught to be ashamed of too much curiosity, unless that curiosity was firmly focused on the dogma I was constantly and consistently hammered with - day in and day out. I was taught that the majority of the humanity that I was commanded to love, were going to suffer for all of eternity in hell, because they didn't worship the right god, didn't worship the right god properly or didn't worship any god at all. I spent subsequent decades trying to make reality fit within the confines of dogma - tried to shift the dogma to accommodate reality - became increasingly desperate to find some way to hold onto my Faith, because that was right and critically important.

Please, if you don't see it as such - please explain to me how that experience of mine wasn't child abuse that led to decades of hell. Drug abuse, self-loathing and unrelenting depths of despair, masked by extremes of sensory overload from sex, drugs, writing and music.

More importantly, why should I sit back and pretend that this moderation that Chris speaks so highly of is any better for some of those people, than it was for me. At least when I was a fundie, I was somewhat content. I wasn't desperate to make it all make sense, because it made sense - I didn't need to question, because the answers were there and beyond those answers was minutia that I could parse easily, through prayer and study. Yes, I was occasionally angry and ashamed by my inability to focus everything on my god - but it was unquestionably easier than the suffering of the last eighteen to twenty years of my life.

I am certain that there are many people who are more than happy to live in that realm of moderate faith - I don't really care. Because for many people, that moderate faith is merely fundamentalism tainted and broken by doubts. A desperate place where the reality is an increasingly desperate need to make the absolutely incompatible weave into the fresh whole cloth of a coherent worldview.

I am for helping them, helping people like me - period. If some moderates and fundies get hurt, angry or offended along the way - well honestly, I'm not even really sorry about it. Both groups and those in between and outside on the fringes foster an environment of absolutely hellish agony.

That is what I am combating and will continue to combat. And I am not going to apologize for it - no one who fostered my personal hell has, or has even shown any remorse for my experience there.

A Word on the Spiritualization of Sex...

I am about finished writing a review of a sex educational video on the G-spot and fortuitously discovered an excellent post by Greta Christina on a topic that is very relevant to the DVD I am reviewing right now. Because while this particular movie is an excellent instructional, it is also rather rife with sex woo (I will be reviewing some educational videos that aren't so big on the woo as well). I think the quality of instruction and also the overall format of this movie make it worthy in spite of the woo, but I definitely have some issues with the spiritualizing of sexuality.

I am in the process of organizing and will start writing a series on sex and sexuality, from a basic discussion of exploring your partner's body and into discussions about how our society in general treats sex, human sexuality outside the hetero/homo dichotomy and beyond. I will be posting fairly detailed instructional posts about the mechanics of certain sexual techniques and ways to enhance the sexual pleasure of both partners and even get into self-pleasure. I am not going to stop posting about the things I generally post about and intend for this series to be written over an extended period...And now that word about sex woo....

"Tantric Orgasms and Sacred Sex: New Age Spirituality in the Sex Community," is actually a response to some discussions of Greta's earlier post; "A Skeptic's View of Sexual Transcendence." Specifically it addresses the question of why so much of the sex-positive community is into this spiritualization of sexuality.

I am not so far out of my own Faith and spirituality. It was less than a year ago, when I finally let it all go and that, kicking and screaming (metaphorically). So it is really easy for me to miss out on the obvious and I think that Greta really hits on some issues that should be pretty obvious to someone like me, who has been there and come out the other side.

In short, her first point is that society as a generalization tends to look at religion/spiritualism as positive forces, while the generalized social perception of sex is more of a negative. Thus many in the sex positive community will equate sexuality as a spiritual experience. She also makes a couple of other important points and I highly recommend reading both of the posts I linked to, but I rather wanted to focus on this point - mainly because it is absolutely not what ever motivated me to perceive sex as a spiritual experience. In all honesty, I have never thought of sex as a bad thing, ever since that initial clumsy fumbling about with a girl I went to church with, so many years ago. Indeed, both that then girl and I both walked away from our virginity believing that sex is absolutely fucking wonderful - in spite of the fact that that first time wasn't terribly impressive - the key was that it felt really good and absolutely nothing horrible happened because of it. While I have not had contact with her in more than ten years, I would consider her a rather dear friend and am confident that she feels the same about me.

But then, most people are aware I'm something of a freak. If you weren't aware, hang around for a while and you'll get the picture. Point being, I suspect that there really is something to Greta's assertion. And because I suspect that there is something to her assertion, I feel the need to clarify how I feel about sex and more importantly, the perspective I will be approaching this topic from. I don't want people who feel some kind of spiritual connection through sex to feel that I don't respect you or that these posts are just not for you. You are absolutely welcome here and while I don't buy into the spiritualization of sex, I don't have a problem with you doing so...I would however, suggest that you really consider your feelings about sex and what might be motivating those feelings.

Obviously I think that sex is a positive thing. And now that I have gotten done telling you that I don't buy into the spiritualization of sex, I will clarify that sex can and often is a transcendent experience for me. It is one of the few activities that makes it possible for me to actually get out of my head. I get hyperfocused when I am having sex - I am not thinking about anything else, not splitting my focus at all - everything and everything is about pleasing my partner. At the same time, my partner is doing exactly the same with me and thus, we are both experiencing intense pleasures, while not being entirely cognisant of what is happening to our own bodies - it's almost like experiencing the pleasure through the person we are pleasing.

It's also what to me, defines the difference between sex and masturbation that uses someone else's body as a sex toy.

I truly and passionately believe that sex is an incredible way to connect to other human beings. I have never been huge on monogamy, because I have never been one to equate sex with love in the sense of loving a romantic partner - though that is changing as I am developing a relationship the likes of which I have never experienced before. That is not to say that I don't equate sex with love - I have loved most of the people I had sex with, on a certain level. But I have never really been one to make a solid connection between having sex and the love that I have had for the few romantic partners I've had. But I love to make that connection - the feeling of another person's body, reacting and moving - solidly connected to my body - sweaty, messy and completely, deliciously raw human interaction.

Why the fuck do we need to attach something more to something so very awesome as all that? Putting some spiritual dimension to it can't possibly add anything to the wonder that is the sexual experience. It is plenty magical enough, without adding actual magical thinking to the mix - I tend to think that such magical thinking can only be a detraction - a distraction from being so wholly consumed by this engagement with another human being. If you are focusing on some magical component, it is just that much less focus you are putting into making this sex, the very best sexual experience your partner has ever had.

Sex is truly transcendent enough, without the magical thinking and I can't help but think that it is far more transcendent when the magical thinking isn't getting in the way...

Personal Growth and Evolution

I absolutely adore Jessica Palmer's art and her blog, bioephemora.  She posts some of the very sexiest art and also manages to toss in some very interesting discussions that often revolve around shifting media paradigms.  But in a recent post about a very intriguing piece of artwork, she made a rather innocuous comment that really bothered me - because I didn't actually know why she objected.  The subject of the post is an electroformed copper sculpture entitled "Evolve."  It's a depiction of a chrysalid formed in metal, which I agree is rather interesting - it is certainly the sort of notion that makes me rather happy in and of itself.  But Jessica doesn't like the title.  I misunderstood her objection to mean that she didn't like it being used to describe individual development in the manner I was reading the actual art - i.e. personal development.  Instead her objection is specifically to evolve being used to describe the individual biological development. 

This sort of misunderstanding happens to me rather often, as I tend to be an extremely abstract thinker. 

I am going ahead and posting this post anyways, because outside the context of Jessica's post, what I wrote still stands - even in regards to the notion of evolution.  While Jessica doesn't actually object to using evolution to describe non-biological processes, I have run across the objection before.  More importantly, I also bring some other words into the discussion that have been known to raise some hackles and there are a great many more words for which this discussion is relevant.  Language purity and mechanical accuracy unquestionably have their place, but there are also contexts in which both simply get in the way.  Sometimes they interfere with making a point, sometimes they they make it hard to express oneself accurately and precisely.  Other times they interfere with the creation of sculptures, paintings of words, of panoramic wordscapes that ebb and flow across and through, under and over our consciousness, melding with it's own intricate pathways and webs until we forget where the wordscape ends and our mindscape begins - blurring definitions and lines and even the grey dwindles and condenses, coalescing into a greater whole that is something completely different, but no less beautiful than it's melting into other minds.

When the guidelines interfere, throw them out the window.

I do not believe that there is any good reason to restrict the use of any word that can be used to accurately describe many processes to a singular context.  This may just be part and parcel with my very favorite medium as an artist being words and sounds, but I am all about stretching language to it's very limits and beyond.  Words have power and I have argued rather voraciously that overusing particularly powerful words just lessens that power.  However, using words accurately, outside their normal context can have the opposite effect - or more to the point can both increase their own potency and give strength to the point they're being used to make.

Language is and always should be fluid.  There are certainly situations where one must stay within very strict parameters - I am having a hell of a time learning to write formally in an academic context, for example.  But outside the context of more formal writing, I believe that English mechanics and grammar are more of a loose set of guidelines, than strict laws.  For that matter, I am all about making up words, when there isn't a word available for a given situation.  A "few" of my readers have noticed that I rather overuse commas - or a few have noticed who actually decided to mentioned it to me...A few of those have noticed that I use commas the way that I do, because rather than putting them where mechanics would dictate, I put them where I would be utilizing them, if I was actually verbalizing what I am writing - mostly people who have spent much time talking with me notice...

And evolution is a word that I actually like to use in a variety of contexts, because I think that it is a very precise word for describing concepts that would otherwise take far more words to describe.  It implies things that needn't then be explicitly stated.  And I am sure that everyone who reads what I have to say, knows how very important brevity and saving on words is to me...Ok, so I am actually rather fond of the words, but those who know me well understand that I am very keen on my language being rather concise.  And for that, evolution is a very useful word to describe processes of change over time, influenced by complex variables both internal and external - kind of like the process of slowly changing one's world view, personal moral frame, religious beliefs and even one's personality.  Not one of us is the person we were ten years ago and I think that evolution is possibly the perfect word to describe the process that changed us from the person we were then, to the person we are now. 

The example I used in comments on that thread, was my religious beliefs.  I explained that I have evolved from a fundamentalist Christian when I was young, through a rather twisted mixture of Christianity and magic (or more accurately mysticism) and eventually became the atheist I am today.  By using the word "evolved," I can avoid being specific about my journey through magical thinking, while implying that it is a lot more complicated than the vague stages I described.  I am thus able to communicate in a sentence, what could easily take a couple paragraphs, which depending on the context in which I am describing that journey, may be entirely irrelevant.  Another example where using the concept of evolution is quite handy is when describing interpersonal relationships and for that matter, extrapersonal relationships.  Or when describing changes in complex social systems. 

Though it turns out that her objection is in the context of using evolve to describe a biological process that isn't actually evolution, but rather biological development,  I run into a lot of folks in the world of psychology who, for example, strenuously object to the use of misogyny, outside the context of a pathological hatred of women, or who object to the use of addiction to describe anything that isn't actively causing the addict significant harm and in some circles anything that isn't a substance addiction.  I understand these objections to a certain point.  I would certainly question someone using misogyny in a professional setting, to describe someone who is actually just an extreme chauvinist who makes very generalized statements about the inferiority of women - or someone who described someones fondness for a particular type of music as an addiction.  In a professional context these descriptions would be entirely inappropriate. 

But in a social context I believe not only is it appropriate, there can even be a certain utility to it.  In the case of evolution, I think it is a net positive to use the concept of evolution as a pop-culture reference because it gets people used to the word - even people who in the context of science, believe evolution is an attack on their faith.  In the case of addiction, I think it's a net positive because it can only reduce destructive stigmas relating to addiction, if addiction is used more often outside the negative context of self-destructive tendencies.  Misogyny, on the other hand, is a mixed bag.  I've discussed the overuse of misogyny and misandry and the notion that using them outside of very specific contexts reduces their effectiveness.  It is a lot like accusing people of being Hitler - using them too often makes them virtually useless when it is appropriate to do so.  Ultimately the same is true of the other words I'm discussing here and many that I'm not.  But these are two that are invectives and therefore require a great deal more discretion.  But I digress...

Language is power.  Language is what we use to define, express and in a great many ways perceive reality.  So much of what we see with our eyes, smell with our noses, feel with our bodies, taste with our tongues and hear with our ears is rendered nearly meaningless without the context that language provides.  Consider for a moment what it would be like to see the elegant beauty of honeysuckle, to smell it's fragrance, to feel the soft, velvet texture of it's flowers, to hear the breeze rustle through it and to taste the sweet, slightly bitter flavor of the heart of its buds.  Now imagine all that, without language to consider it in the privacy of your own mind, much less express it outwardly.  Language is so profoundly important, beautiful - human.  Language is really what makes us human.  Limiting language, is nothing less than limiting the scope of human experience - like somehow we're human enough, we're fine the way we are and don't need to grow and expand ourselves.

When we stop growing, we start dying.

Addiction, Neurological Issues, Satan and the Framing Wars

I am keeping this top posted for the moment, as I have a couple of comments out that refer to it - please check out more recent posts below.

A couple of quick additions. First, I want to let those who care know that the new meds seem to be coming together for me. It's still a little early to tell, but switching off the Seroquel was definitely a positive and I do feel better overall. Second, a friend who is familiar with the coffee shop and it's denizens - as well as me, thought it likely that the scowls I got from those around us, were probably as much because of the slam on Bill. She also mentioned that they were probably already scowling at me, I just didn't notice. There are usually a few AA folks there and I do tend to discuss addiction quite a bit. So a lot of the regulars know that while I'm not as harsh as some folks on AA, I am highly critical.

I would just like to provide an example of why I have, the position I have, on a discussion over at Greg Laden's blog and on what amounts to a three year discussion about framing science and it's intersection with religion. This is something that keeps flaring up and always perks my interest, because one, I've been involved for about three years (give or take several months) and two, my position on it has changed considerably for several reasons.

Taxing my google skills to their max and beyond (learned a couple things doing this), I have managed to find one of the earliest posts on this discussion, by none other than my own brother Ed, over at Dispatches. If you're a glutton for punishment, you can wade through some of the comments and check out my contribution, which is a far different position than I express today. And one of the contributors to the evolution of my stance and shedding of my Faith, has been this very discussion. It was my intent to actually dig through and find a couple of my comments, but after the time and effort it took just finding these posts, I haven't the will. Please keep in mind that this isn't actually the first post, nor was this the only one at the time. There were at least a couple dozen other bloggers who weighed in on that particular flame war, several with more than one post.

On and off, this discussion has continued over the last couple of years, most often fomented by a Matt Nisbett who blogs at the Seed sciblog collective. I'll link to one of his more recent examples of foolishness, though to be honest, I dislike Matt enough and suspect his motivations to the point that I am hesitant to actually link him. Back around thanksgiving last, he posted this bullshit, wherein he explains to us ignorant gits, that calling people who deny certain fundamentals, such as evolution, the importance of vaccines, or, in the context of this very post, basic neuropsychology denialists, is a bad, bad thing. Several of my favorite bloggers had a lot to say about that. Matt has also given out several other fuckyouverymuch's, like this gem. And I don't know why it didn't occur to me before, but Bora, the sciblogger aggregator has this passel of links from days gone by. (Bora totally rocks, btw...)

Hell of a build-up, to a rather short example - but this is why I am not going to shut up and play nice. (also note that this was my first day off Seroquel and on the new drugs)
More...
I was in the coffee shop the other day, when I chanced into a conversation with an absolute Uber-Faithful nutter. A bible and Big Book thumping True Believer. I was discussing addiction and harm reduction, with a casual coffeehouse friend, when TB decided to jump into the conversation. I had just finished explaining my own experience with addiction, (yes, I actually talk some about the things discussed in the last link on occasion, though honestly I don't remember whether I did in this conversation) when TB busted in with; "You're going to school to study Addiction! You think you're managing your addictions?! You're either nuts or stupid!!!" He wasn't actually that loud, but he was nearly hysterical by the time he got to the last bit, at which point he decided to sit down at our table - to his credit, he does know Casual Friend.

The money quote, my response to which sent him away horribly offended, ranting under his breath:

You are never going to actually deal with your addictions or get to the root of your supposed "neurological issues" until you accept Jesus back into you heart and accept the truth. Mental illness is bullshit. It's nothing more than Satan convincing you that instead of drinking and getting high, you can take these other drugs. Man is not going to help you get through your problems, therapy isn't going to solve anything, unless it's Christ centered therapy. Satan has control of you man and you need to fight him - drugs aren't going to fight Satan! Only Christ and the power of prayer can get you through this!!

Then he put his hand on my shoulder and actually asked me if he could pray with me. Seriously.

"Get your fucking hand off me, you fucking nutter! Take your Faith in Christ and your Faith in Bill and your Faith in Satan and shove it up your ass, you denialist fucking loon! Fairytales have nothing to do with what's going on in my head jackass, it's fucking neurochemistry - the way my fucking brain works!"

"You're addicted to drugs and addicted to Satan!"

"I'm a fucking atheist you fucking moron!!!"

And yes, I was more or less fucking hysterical by this point - seriously fucking pissed. Pissed enough that I shouted rather loudly, in the middle of a coffee shop in the midwest, that I'm an atheist. And I'm really only an atheist in the broadest sense of the word, deist is far more accurate a label. But I was pretty sure he wouldn't have a clue what that meant, and as I said, I was borderline hysterical - which side of said border, it's hard to say. My rather loud admission garnered me a few scowls. On the other hand, when next I went for a refill, my friendly barista mentioned that a gent over yonder had covered my next cup - when I looked over, he smiled at me and shortly after wandered over to our table.

Now I need to explain that there was about half an hour, forty-five minutes of discussion before TB and I got into our shouting match. It had mostly been a reasonable discussion, with TB mostly just listening. When he started into the above long quote (not quite a perfect reproduction, but very close - the last one was his exact words), it was like he just couldn't take it anymore and had to respond to a lot that had been said. I avoided saying anything at all about AA while he was sitting there, but I did talk about harm reduction and started touching on linguistics - he really took exception to the idea that anyone can be considered successful in treating their addiction, if they aren't entirely abstinent from all psychoactive substances - including psychiatric drugs.

After he had left, Casual Friend explained that TB regularly relapses, carries a great deal of guilt and seems to be increasingly unhinged about it all. Mind you TB's relapses aren't multi-week, or even multi-day binges in which he gets totally hammered and blacks out. Every several months, he apparently breaks down and has a couple of beers before he can stop himself.

I also want to explain that I grew up with TB's same sort of bullshit, though not quite as extreme. My mom firmly believed that my "problems" growing up, were the result of demonic activity - probably passed down from my biological father. While she has come to accept some of the ideas of neuropsychology, she still believes that many of my problems are influenced by demons - at least she accepts that the drugs are probably a very good idea (Yes CPP, I will get to discussing my cognitive therapy soon). By default, I also believed that sort of bullshit and it was nothing but trouble for me, until I got over it and accepted who I am and how my brain functions.

The thing is, while TB is an extremist, fringe fucking loon, my mom isn't. Her beliefs aren't really outside the fundamentalist mainstream on this - indeed she's rather comparatively tame these days. I am not trying to claim that all, or even most Christians attribute mental illness to demonic possession or activity, but a great many fundamentalists do. They'll accept the occasional need for medication, grudgingly, but many of them have serious issues with members of the flock seeing secular therapists instead of Christ focused counseling and prayer. And I have been to talk with several pastors in that context - it's truly insane what these folks are legally allowed to get away with in the name of religion.

Just in this, my small corner of the conflict between Faith and reason, the stakes are high and the battle is tough. Those fundamentalist positions, watered down to the moderate baseline are still quite often an uphill battle. Instead of the extreme, anti-science - blame it on Satan approach, it is merely a distrust of science that conflicts with dogma. And no matter how much you water it down, there is still conflict between science and dogma. Because unless that dogma makes absolutely no claims about it's god's influence on the natural world, there is either conflict or a god that does virtually nothing at all.

I am not militant. I'm not even really much of an atheist, I rather tend to think it likely that there is some sort of physical/spiritual duality to living beings. I no longer Believe it, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if someday we discover that this is indeed the case. When people decide that they want their god to bless me, I just smile and nod. When they ask me if it's ok to pray for me, I politely tell them that I don't think it makes a lick of difference, but it doesn't bother me. But when people want to make claims about Faith, that conflict with reality, I am not just going to smile and nod - I will respond to it. And if they are going to insist on fucking idiot notions like those of TB, I may well get fucking rude about it. If they are going to insult me with their presumptions about the nature of my shedding my Faith, I am probably going to get pissed if they insist on keeping up with it, after I've made my position clear. (Though as a general rule, I don't tend to get hysterical - that was more the headspace I was in already, than anything TB said)

And if you want to tell me that my doing this is a bad thing, that I need to change my language or shut up and let others talk about it, you can go fuck yourself.

Seriously.

Indeed.

I am rather up and down about reading Pharyngula. I really enjoy many of the posts, but one of the pleasures of blogs is discussing what's been said and that is kind of strange over there. Which is, in turn, kind of strange coming from me - because I'm kind of an asshole a lot of the time. But I really enjoy a lot of Paul's posts and wander on over once in a while. This post rather struck me, especially the following:

This is what religion is: they angle for fresh prey, and once they snag you, they swallow you up. You are embraced in the rugae and crypts of the gut of the church, all warm and pink and soft and wet and intimate, and each of the members is like a little villus — a multitude of villi brush adoringly against you, each telling you how wonderful and delicious you are, and each leeching away a little of yourself, your individuality, your independence. It feels good as you are slowly absorbed. Then at last, when your will is gone and your dependence is complete, you are digested by the body of Christ, and there you will be for all of your productive years. Eventually, when you are old and no longer active, you'll take residence in the colon of the church, serviced by occasional visits from a priest or a volunteer, in hopes of one final ka-ching from your will…and then your empty husk will be shat out into the church graveyard, with the leavings of other past meals. The churches of your community all ought to be viewed as predatory animals, some lazy and sated, others restless and hungry, but all eyeing you as potential fodder to keep the beast alive.

Even a year ago, it is likely that I would have actually argued about this. But the argument would not really have been an argument that this is inaccurate, it would have been an argument of motivations. And the thing is, the motivations are still there - the point is still valid, but it doesn't actually refute a damned thing written in that paragraph.

The fact of the matter is, as is the case with most other woo - the victimizers are also the victims. Yes, there are a great many scam artists and pretenders - in the clergy and congregations. But there are also a whole lot of Christians out there who are honestly and earnestly seeking to save you from what they believe will be your eternal damnation and suffering. They truly believe that if you don't go to church, follow the dogma and believe/worship who and how they do - you're going to suffer horribly.

I know how they feel, I've felt it - I've been in those shoes. I was ok with being mocked, because I knew that what I had to say could go somewhere someday. If my small part to play eventually led to their salvation from eternal suffering, well, who cares about a little mockery at my expense? I know how they feel, because I spent years with an underlying terror that my own dad and eventually my brother were going to hell.

This makes it very difficult for some people to withstand the deluge. If you haven't read the whole of PZ's piece, do so. He describes a couple of situations, one written about by one of his readers and one that happened to him. I have been that proselytizing jackass, astounded that someone could be so blind to the obvious. I mean it really did seem so obvious to me and it was very confusing when people just didn't see it after I explained it all.

I was very good at helping bring people into my Faith, because I was so very genuine. Because no matter the sorts of mischief I got into - and I got into a lot - I genuinely cared about other people and really wanted them to avoid eternal suffering. I was obviously imperfect, yet entirely confident that my god loved me anyways and it was all ok in the end. I was trying and that was what mattered. That and I genuinely cared about the people I was proselytizing to - and it showed. That showering love fest that PZ describes is entirely accurate, but it's also far more nefarious for being genuine.

I feel genuinely sad for many of the people I went to church with who know that I am not a Christian. They genuinely love me and also believe absolutely that I am going to suffer eternal damnation if I don't accept their Faith. Even worse is my mom, who obviously loves me and wants me to avoid the eternal suffering that she believes is what people who do not Believe will suffer.

But it just is what it is - and isn't what so many Believe it is.

I am still working on my first post about things that kept me holding desperately onto my faith. But I think this actually can qualify as a prelude of sorts, because it was the loving community that made it very hard to leave - not to mention the disappointment of a great many loved ones.

I am going to continue with the post I was actually writing, but honestly can't say how quickly it will come. I have actually been doing things that aren't school or writing and have to get school stuff done too. And focusing is still a huge pain in the ass - exhausting even.

Speaking of, it is way past my damned bedtime - goodnight...