Monday, September 11, 2006

9/11, Jesus the scene-stealer, and losing god(s)

I started this entry on 9/8, and although I’ve flogged myself for being a bad blogger and not posting, I suppose it’s fitting that it be published on 9/11 as people remember that day that took, and changed, so many American lives. Mine was but one of them, and for me that tragic day ties in with another, of which PZ reminded me.

Steve Irwin’s death is a tragic loss to his family and all the good work he’s done for the natural world.  My heart goes out to his loved ones, and the man has my respect for sharing his knowledge in such a way as to engage the interest of those who might not otherwise learn about some of the “monsters” we share the planet with.

So, in my blog-wandering, I came across PZ’s post, “Ken Ham spits on Steve Irwin’s Corpse”, wherein he describes what it’s like to attend a loved one’s “memorial” and… well, I’ll let him tell it:

My baby sister (she was in her thirties and had two kids of her own, but she’ll always be my little sis) died a few years ago of one of those sudden, massive infections - the kind of unexpected reminder of bacterial dominance that killed Jim Henson. When I attended the funeral, I was reminded of another lower life form that afflicts humanity: the minister was an ecstatic Jesus freak who, rather than talking about the young woman we’d lost, or trying to give words of reassurance to a grieving family, instead tried to turn the affair into a revival meeting, asking people to TESTIFY FOR JESUS!!! and otherwise making her superstition the center of attention, rather than Lisa and loss. It galled me no end, as you might guess, and if it weren’t for my respect for members of my family I would have grabbed her by the scruff of the neck and thrown her into the street.

Maybe I should have anyway. Goddamn all preachers, pastors, and priests.

It was a nearly identical experience that removed the last shread of tolerance I had for Christians in general, and fundamentalists in particular. In retrospect, that day was probably the one on which I decided I’d have to stop pretending that I believed in any sort of afterlife, and impress upon the people I loved how important it is for me to make THIS life a full one instead. There are people in my life with whom I have left things unsaid, or undone… and to me, it is those missed opportunities for shared moments and memories (sometimes even painful ones) that make some losses more agonizing than others, and become catalysts for sweeping changes in one’s own life.

My dear departed friend was “born again” in the late-80s/early 90s, and at the time I had been Wiccan for several years. To her credit, she did live up to her faith and take every opportunity to bring me to Jesus; and although I thanked her and told her I understood her motivation, by then I’d not been a Christian for nearly twice as many years as I had been one, or at least nominally so.  I remember clearly the day that I tearfully asked her to not let our religious differences get in the way of a friendship that began in grade school, and she said she wouldn’t.

As it happened, something entirely unrelated (but painful and catalytic in its own right) caused our contact with one another to change from an almost-daily occurrence to such infrequency that by the time she died, it had probably been at least 8 years since we’d spent any time together.  When I got married, almost 11 years ago now, I’d heard that although she wished me well, she was frightened for the immortal souls of her loved ones who attended my pagan wedding ceremony. Again, although I truly understood her POV, hearing those words - fundy “talking points” - hurt my heart.

On 9/11/2001, fundamentalists flew airplanes into buildings and killed over 3000 Americans, and when I posted on a message board that such tragedy is what happens when religious people take their invisible friends and their ancient myths too seriously, I was accused of being a godless anti-American, damned to Hell and called the foulest names in Christendom. And perhaps that day I did become godless… and definitely anti-fundamentalist… but certainly not anti-American. If the horrific aftermath of the acts of fundamentalist Muslims wasn’t enough to show convince me that I wanted no part of the Abrahamic deity, the words and acts of Christians in their response was a clear demonstration of what a monster this God is; or more particularly, just how far His followers will go in their pursuit of pleasing such a monster.

I didn’t pray on 9/11.  And although I lit a candle, I recall thinking that it was a memorial in honor of everyone who died and NOT a small ritual beseeching an invisible friend for blessings or help to defeat “our enemies”. On that day, it really hit home just how irrational, unnecessary and downright dangerous it is to give credence to invisible friends of any stripe. As the smoking ruins of the WTC stood testament to, some people are religious enough, committed enough, BATSHIT CRAZY enough to kill themselves and others at the behest of their invisible friends. Others still are batshit crazy enough to say that those thousands of Americans died because their invisible friend is punishing the country for the religious tolerance, laws and public policy He supposedly disapproves of.

Free thought, science, dissent, free speech and religious tolerance have been victimized as well since the attacks on America that day. We are being intimidated into giving up our liberties in the name of security, while on the frontlines of the Culture War you can’t listen to 3 minutes of conversation or swing a fucking dead cat in public without running into Jesus.  The god-talk everywhere was bad enough for 10 years before 9/11… it’s unbearable now.

So back to my story…

My friend died quite suddenly later in 2001, and my first thought after hearing the news was, “Where was that fucking Jesus, to whom she’d enslaved her mind and spent the best years of her life in dedicated service to? What grievous ‘sin’ did a 38 year old mother commit that she deserved death NOW, when her children are almost grown?”

If her service was any indication, that Jesus character was right there, right now, and demanded the spotlight to the exclusion of any of those mere mortals who might get up there and profane the occasion by, y’know, talking about their daughter/mother/sister/friend/wife, whom they loved and now mourned the loss of. My despair and sense of decorum prevented me from making a scene, but between my ire at my friend’s taking a backseat to Jesus and having some rather emotional, long-overdue reunions with her family members, I remember that I was having spasms in my back muscles that made it difficult to walk, and breathe.  I escaped the church with all due haste, screaming and howling in pain and rage alone in my car until I got to her sister’s house where we’d gather after the burial.

There is no afterlife, no “better place” for a person to be, especially when they were young enough to be enjoying their family and friends.  The way I see it, even if you believe in an afterlife, living as though you don’t at least ensures you’ll enjloy THIS one to its fullest.  I will never see my friend again, and unlike believers, I find no comfort in the irrational precept that her death is somehow less tragic because “she’s with Jesus,” even though I know she’d have liked nothing better than for that guy-in-the-sky thing to be true.  Despite her commitment to Christ, I can’t help but think she’d much rather have waited a few more decades before going off to “be with” Him.

I sure as hell know I’d have liked her to become a crazy old lady with the rest of us, with or without Jesus.

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Udargo sums it up

Found in the comments on one of PZ Myers’ posts on Pharyngula, concerning Rabbi Avi Shafran’s assertion that atheists can’t be moral:

There’s something disturbing about these people who can’t comprehend how humans can be moral without fear of the “glaring cosmic policeman.”

And this perhaps shows us the true value of religion: There are a lot of people who need a belief in the glaring cosmic policeman to keep them in line. If Rabbi Shafran wasn’t a rabbi, he’d probably be a pretty scary dude. He’d be raping, pillaging and murdering, apparently.

And maybe some people will never be able to develop a more sophisticated moral awareness, based on empathy and respect for the truth (which I believe are the twin pillars of a healthy, adult morality). Maybe that’s why we do need religion. Maybe it does us more good than we realize.

I think this is actually what many of the Founding Fathers believed about the Christian religion. It was something necessary to keep those less philosophically sophisticated in line. Maybe they were right.

Posted by: udargo May 21, 2006 03:59 PM

Respect for the truth, and empathy… that’s what “morality” boils down to for me.  The only way to educate is to tell the truth, and the foundation of nearly every religion on earth is “treat others as you’d like to be treated.”

Not only does religion, and in particular Judeo-Christianity, require one to ignore certain truths, but by painting humans as inherently sinful beings’ whose only salvation lies in denying their natural biological instincts except under strict rules (say… sex exclusively within marriage), it fosters guilt and shame that leads to secrets and lies. In turn those “sins” or vices end up breeding entire subcultures where there are bound to be extremists. Not to mention entire families whose “history” is peppered with lies because someone was afraid of what the ladies at church would say about Grandpa’s “breakdown” or Aunt Sally’s unwed pregnancy.

The truth may not be pretty, or welcomed… in fact, it may be downright offensive or painful to hear.  But it’s infinitely more useful to have accurate information by which to live your life, and in the end spares you the unnecessary pain of having been deceived.  It’s not always the easiest or most comfortable course of action to tell the truth, either, and as cliche as it may be, honesty IS always the best policy.

Except of course, when listing one’s weight on her driver’s license

Monday, March 06, 2006

‘New act of terrorism in New York,’ my ass!!!

I just got this email, and although I didn’t take the infected bait, I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who do.  After all, who can resist breaking news of a “New act of terrorism in New York,” that looks like it’s coming from the BBC?

To: OB
Subject: New act of terrorism in New York
From: “New York BBC News”
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:34:36 -0600

Today the FBI has informed new act of terrorism in New York.
Look details in an applied file.

Well… it’s immediately apparent that the person who wrote the above message is either a.) a child, b.) a moron, or more probably c.) a non-English speaker.

I, however, am none of those things. So, on top of the fact that I know better than to open *zip files (or ANY attachments) coming from people I don’t know, I’m quite sure that this did not come from the BBC.  They wouldn’t butcher English so thoroughly as this piece of shit, virus-peddling douchebag has in this abortion of a scam email.  I’m not sure whether they should be punished more severely for the virus or the murder of my beloved language.

The attached file is called “main.zip” and is 34k of some sort of shit that’d probably turn my computer into a zombie and start spamming beasty porn or ads for C1@L!S… so I hit the Delete button while shouting a hearty “Fuck Off!”

Who is it that buys into such a badly worded email claiming to be a “news story,” which not only isn’t spelled out IN the email, but requires opening a separate file?  Are there really still people out in the world that are THAT naive?  I have a difficult time believing it… or perhaps I’m just in denial.

Jesus.  Stupidity should be painful.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Marguerite Perrin vs. Jeanne D’Amico Flisher

Trading Spouses: Psycho Fundy / Neo-Pagans

I don’t watch much reality television as a rule… that is, other than home improvement shows (and this season, Beauty and the Geek).  Of course, I make exceptions for those shows where religion is an issue, such as the Wife Swap episode where one of the families was that of the Infidel Guy, and of course, the Trading Spouses episode (rerun this past weekend) that introduced the world to Jeanne D’Amico, a kind and lovely woman with an open mind… as well as the horror show known as “The God Warrior,” Marguerite Perrin.  The Fundy From Hell.

Within hours of the first airing of the show, the Internet was abuzz about the God Warrior - there was even a fucking bobble-head of this crazy woman on eBay, which apparently sold for over $800, and was presented to Marguerite on Jay Leno (I didn’t see it, mind you… I’m just reporting what I’ve read).  I went to the official Trading Spouses boards after seeing the episode, because that’s what we board whores do after seeing a show that creates a strong reaction of whatever sort and have to rant. To my horror, there were more than a few people who actually defended this woman’s looney religious fervor that had her talking to God, rebuking a psychic, fearing gargoyle statues, and having a full-blown psychotic tantrum when she returned home.  Now, I know damned well much of the show is the result of editing, but you’ve got to have raw footage to start with, and this broad is a certifiable nut with a deadly addiction to Jesus.

There were actually people (women, mostly) who cited Jeanne’s HAIR as clear proof that she was “ungodly” or “dark-sided.” Of course I had to chime in and let them know that that is just Dago girl hair, and they were just jealous because Jeanne was very sweet and pretty, while Marg was more like a crazed warthog!

So of course, it’s the lunatic Jesus freak that gets all the press, puts up a website and is selling a CD… while talking shit about the freethinking NICE mom and her family.  Meanwhile Jeanne just has a little blog, where she tries to set things straight as she continues to deal with the changes in HER life.  It’s bad enough her family had to be subjected for a whole week to a crazy Christian woman whose OWN family cowers in fear during her tirades and “spirit-filled” rantings, while she gave Marguerite’s family what was probably the best week of their lives; now she’s got to have this crazy bitch posting gossip about her, and going behind her back to talk to her (now) ex-husband, Chris Flisher?  Jeanne’s left to pick up the pieces of her life, while Marguerite’s flying back and forth to media events capitalizing on her extended 15 minutes of fame, simply because she went psycho for God on national television?

America has gone stark, raving mad.

Friday, February 17, 2006

Justices in the Amaani Lyle vs. Warner Bros. Case Agree with ME!

In May 2004, I wrote about the ridiculous sexual harassment lawsuit brought against Warner Bros. and “Friends” by Amaani Lyle, a writer’s assistant who felt her 4-month stint exposed her to a hostile work environment because of the writers’ crass language and overly sexual comments while brainstorming.

Here’s what I said:

The fact of the matter is that in spite of the strides made by women in the workplace, it’s still a man’s world and boys will be boys… especially in the entertainment industry where eternal Peter Pans keep the machine going by giving the people what they want - the idea that whatever’s in front of them will somehow get them laid.  Sex sells, and the entertainment industry sexualizes anything and everything.  Any woman who expects to be treated with kid gloves in the business is woefully naive and deserves to be run off if she’s too easily offended AND can’t bring herself to tell the boys when they need to shut the fuck up already.  When you’re playing with the boys, you’d best have balls enough to stand up for yourself once in awhile or you’ll get chewed up and spit out in short order.  Hooray for Hollywood.

It would appear that the California Supreme Court Justices hearing the case on Tuesday are inclined to agree, according to this article on Law.com yesterday, Crass or Creative? Harassment Case Involving ‘Friends’ Sitcom Reaches Calif. Justices:

Joey Tribbiani would be thrilled.

On Tuesday, the justices of the California Supreme Court seemed inclined to keep their fingers—and jurors’ second-guessing—out of the creative process that helped breathe life into his sex-obsessed character, and others, on the sitcom “Friends.”

The court, in a case televised live by the California Channel, had been asked to rule that writers’ sexually crude comments and simulations while hashing out TV scripts could constitute sexual harassment serious enough to cause a hostile work environment, especially for women and minorities.

But the six justices on hand for oral arguments appeared uncomfortable with the thought of forcing writers to curb their thoughts, words and actions even if they often push the boundaries of sexual harassment.

“This case is unique, is it not, in that it arises in the context of this creative environment,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said.

Justice Ming Chin, recovering from surgery, was absent, but will participate by reviewing tapes of the arguments.

Tuesday’s case was filed by Amaani Lyle, a former writer’s assistant for “Friends,” who claimed that the vulgar language and graphic antics used by the show’s male writers during her four-month employment in 1999 subjected her to a hostile work environment. She argued that constant talk about anal sex, blow jobs, “schlongs” and degrading descriptions of women as “bitches” and “cunts” had nothing to do with the show—which was much tamer on air—and was simply lewd, frat-boy entertainment for the writers.

The writers and Warner Brothers Television Productions, which produced “Friends,” responded by claiming that dirty talk and lewd actions—such as simulating masturbation—were part of the free-rolling, creative process that made “Friends” one of the most popular shows ever on TV.
[Whoa, deja vu!—OB]

“It was one of the tools of the trade,” Adam Levin, a partner at Los Angeles’ Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp who represented the writers and Warner Brothers, told the justices Tuesday.

[snip]

On Tuesday, the high court seemed to be in Levin’s corner, with more than one justice noting that Lyle had been warned before she took the job that she would be exposed to foul language of a sexual content.

“If she’s told there’s going to be sexual banter back and forth—and that happens—where’s the alteration to conditions of employment?” Chief Justice Ronald George asked Scott Cummings, a Los Angeles lawyer who represented Lyle.

George was referring to provisions of the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act that prohibit harassment so pervasive that it alters some condition of an employee’s job.

Levin had earlier argued that Lyle faced no change in employment conditions because exposure to sexually charged speech was part and parcel to her work.

Even so, Justices Werdegar and Carlos Moreno played the devil’s advocate by asking whether writers had absolute immunity from harassment claims or if there were limits on what could be said in writers’ meetings.

Levin said there “are limits, no question about it,” such as not being able to direct racial epithets at minority employees. He also said that writers for the movie “Finding Nemo” or the TV series “Sesame Street” likely wouldn’t engage in such banter.

Amaani should have stayed at Nickelodeon if she’s so goddamned sensitive to crude humor and the sort of sexual banter that goes on between adults, especially in an environment where a “sexy” show is being written.

Stupid fuckin’ cunt, heh.

I’m glad the Justices seem to be aware of the chilling effect ruling in favor of Ms. Lyle would have on the creative process, and that making an exception due to the “intensity” of some of the comments she’d “endured” simply because of her sex would be unfair.  According to the statute, harassment must be “because of a person’s gender”, and there’s “no indication that the writers’ comments and actions were based on sex.” So tough titties to you, Amaani!

Get used to the frat-boy humor and sex jokes, babe, or you’ll never make it in this town!

(Found via the Free Speech X-Press Newsletter)