Announcing the Rational Day of Dialogue

The Day of Silence has been one of the most successful grassroots protests for gay equality in the past decade - so it's no surprise that it's also succeeded in drawing the ire of conservative Christians. Yes, apparently something so simple as students being silent to stand in solidarity with their gay classmates requires a response from the religious right. They've tried pulling their kids out of school on the Day of Silence, or at least claimed they were going to. They've tried setting up a so-called "Day of Truth" for their kids to tell people that being gay is a sin - which they decided to cancel because dozens of gay kids were killing themselves. You'd think that after this, they might give it up and stop trying to refute an anti-bullying campaign. But, like a bad case of ignorance, it just keeps coming back.

This year, Focus on the Family has rebranded it as the "Day of Dialogue". A dialogue about what, you might ask? Well, it's about "supporting those who want to express their faith-based viewpoints about homosexuality". Because when people are standing up against anti-gay bullying, we can't let that pass without an opposing viewpoint!

But if a dialogue is what they're after, maybe that's just what we need. When religion is being used to tell gay students that who they are is wrong, we should have a dialogue about that. If they're going to talk about "what the Bible really says", let's talk about what the Bible really is. If they want to talk about how God made us, let's talk about how we made God. If they want to have a Day of Dialogue, I say we make it a Rational Day of Dialogue. Because if they're going to tell us that who we are is sinful, and expect us to take it on faith, that deserves a real answer.

Anti-gay proselytizing isn't something that should go unchallenged in schools. Students should know the truth behind these religious claims: they're not as unquestionable as they might seem. On April 18th, let's have a real dialogue - a rational dialogue.

Find out more at Rational Day of Dialogue.

5 comments Filed under , , ,

Katy Perry's God

It's practically unavoidable that the gods people invent will take the form of something that reflects their own desires, preferences, priorities, tastes and distastes. And at the same time, the insertion of a god into their worldview inevitably distorts their thinking, because it elevates their own personal perspectives, incomplete and inconsistent and bizarre as they may be, to the final word and binding command of a perfect and almighty deity - a facet of reality imposed from outside, not a subjective judgment generated from within.

This typically manifests as people picking out verses that disapprove of homosexuality from an entire book of incomprehensible, alien laws that they would otherwise disregard, or preferring to doom a woman and her fetus to die rather than allow an abortion that would save her life, or other instances of completely missing the point and failing to apply even the most basic standards of reason. But sometimes, someone manages to take this in a totally new direction. Sometimes, we get Katy Perry.

Perry, a former gospel singer raised by two Christian pastors who only allowed her to listen to gospel music, burst onto the scene in 2008 with a hit single about casually making out with girls at bars:

No, I don't even know your name
It doesn't matter
You're my experimental game
Just human nature

[...]

I kissed a girl just to try it
I hope my boyfriend don't mind it

Her later works include asking men to show her their cocks, general drunken rowdiness, and the "California Gurls" video. Nothing is wrong with any of this. But it is interesting to see what's persisted through all this: an aversion to blasphemy.

Following Gaga's new music video premiere, which was filled with religious imagery, Perry posted a message on Twitter declaring that "using blasphemy as entertainment is as cheap as a comedian telling a fart joke." Perry clarified her statement on a French radio station Monday, insisting she was not singling out the 24-year-old singer.

New York Daily News, 15 Jun 2010

"I am sensitive to Russell taking the Lord’s name in vain and to Lady Gaga putting a rosary in her mouth. I think when you put sex and spirituality in the same bottle and shake it up, bad things happen. Yes, I said I kissed a girl. But I didn’t say I kissed a girl while f-ing a crucifix.”

Rolling Stone, 19 Aug 2010

"Russell has made very blasphemous jokes in the past, but he's making fewer all the time because he knows that I am very sensitive about this subject," says Perry, whose parents were pastors.

"You can be frivolous and fun without needing to get involved in that. And I don't know why that only happens to the Christian religion. I don't see people simulating sex with statues of Buddha, for example."

[...]

"For me, spirituality is something very important and I don't like it when people take it lightly. At times, I don't understand why there are artists who play that card, like when Madonna gets up on a cross to sing."

The Telegraph, 16 Jan 2011

Yes, apparently blasphemy is "cheap", but blasting whipped cream from your breasts is not. Spirituality is serious business, but insincere displays of same-sex affection for the attention and titillation of heterosexual men are no big deal. What kind of god would agree with this? The kind of god that's no brighter than Katy Perry. This is not to say that she's necessarily a hypocrite, or somehow doing religion "wrong" - this would require that someone be "right" about it. It is, however, stupid, and a probable remnant of her upbringing after any possible distaste for partying, drinking, homosexuality and sexuality in general has fallen away1.

But even if many instances of blasphemy are merely an attempt to stir up controversy, just as cheap as singing about men's cocks, there's no particular reason why religion ought to be a subject that's off-limits here. It makes no sense to home in on the things that particularly offend people and intentionally push those buttons, then cry foul when someone does the exact same thing with a topic you happen to be sensitive about. An objection to Lady Gaga putting a rosary in her mouth should be no more compelling than an objection to Perry putting her tongue in another girl's mouth.

What many people who decry blasphemy don't understand is that this sensitivity to it is precisely why it's used. If religious iconography had no such meanings, cultural associations and delicate feelings surrounding it, there would be no point to anyone using it in this way. The unusually high regard in which religion is held is exactly what gives it its power to convey a message here, however trite that message may be. This is hardly taking it lightly at all - this is the very reason artists choose to utilize religion in an unconventional, possibly offensive context.

Christianity is simply the most commonly referenced religion because it's the most common religion, but it's undeniable that almost any religion can, in fact, be funny. For example:

  • Buddhism's idea of a good life is training yourself to not want anything and put up with everything, because they haven't yet figured out the latter two thirds of the Serenity Prayer.
  • If you draw an innocuous cartoon and label it "Muhammad", people will literally set buildings on fire.
  • The world's largest religion is about a relatively unassuming man who invented moral precepts like "be merciful sometimes", empathy, and "anyone who disagrees with me can actually go to Hell."
  • Xenu.
  • People actually believe this.

Terrifying? Undoubtedly. Funny? Yes! With things like this occupying our reality, how can anyone really expect artists not to borrow from it and use it to make a point? Maybe these beliefs do need to be questioned. Maybe some sensibilities need to be offended. And I really wish you all could be California girls. Amen.

1. "My closest friends happen to be gay... I came from a very strict household, where any of that taboo stuff was wrong. I don’t say I hate where I came from, I love my parents and was happy to... have that opportunity to grow, but I came from a strict, suppressed household where that was wrong." (The New Gay, 10 Jun 2008)

18 comments Filed under , ,

Status quo bias, charity, and the trolley problem

The excuses for supporting the Salvation Army, rather than one of the many non-discriminatory charities out there, are becoming progressively more flimsy. But even after I've addressed a number of objections to a boycott of the Salvation Army, there are still a few arguments that are very persistent. And while some of them may not actually need to be refuted, I do hope to at least disfigure them beyond recognition.

Some people have cited the Salvation Army's near-ubiquity in providing social services, the relative accessibility of donating to them, and really just the sheer scale of their operation. But none of these constitute a reason why the Salvation Army should be considered more preferable than other charities. Even if the Salvation Army is responsible for the largest portion of charitable activities, it doesn't mean you get more bang for the buck, so to speak, from giving to them. Your money isn't necessarily doing more good for the dollar when it goes to the Salvation Army instead of another charity.

Besides, it's not like charities are competing in some kind of first-past-the-post election, where whichever one provides a plurality of all charity services should receive all of the funding that would have gone to other charities. They may be the largest, but that doesn't mean we have to support them, and it doesn't mean the rest should be ignored. They're only the largest because we support them, and if we stop supporting them, eventually they may not be the largest anymore.

And even if a certain charity places people practically everywhere to collect donations, that's still not a very good reason to give to them instead of another group. Really, would you give your money to just any people who go to the trouble of putting a collection plate in front of you? Convenience alone is hardly the most relevant factor in choosing which charity you should support. And the entire purpose of drawing attention to the Salvation Army's anti-gay beliefs is to reach people who want to make an informed decision about where their money is going and what it's being used for.

Others claimed that the Salvation Army wouldn't be prepared for a significant drop in donations, and that a major reallocation of funding from the Salvation Army to other charities would incur a great deal of administrative overhead that would ultimately take away from the actual charity services that they provide. But it seems obvious that an organization the size of the Salvation Army already has to be prepared to absorb shortfalls in funding that can result from a declining economy or just periodic fluctuations. This is the kind of thing they'd have to deal with regardless of whether we boycott them. Likewise, it's not as though other charities would be completely unprepared for more donations than usual. If anything, they would almost certainly welcome this. They're not going to be totally clueless about what to do with it all. Do you think they'll have no choice but to spend it on Ferraris for everyone?

Perhaps the most enduring argument against a boycott is the claim that poor and homeless people would freeze to death or suffer some similar fate, and that we're responsible for this if we choose not to give to the Salvation Army. People really love to tell me this, over and over. It's easier to understand this argument if we split it up into two separate parts. First, there's the attempt to persuade us with a vivid example of people dying in the streets for lack of food and shelter if we don't support the Salvation Army. The second part, which is usually left unsaid, is the implication that we should consider this a compelling reason to keep giving to the Salvation Army. It's important to distinguish between these two points, because I can fully acknowledge that depriving them of our money could actually mean that more homeless people will die this winter. I just don't see why I should care. And I'll explain why.

While the problem of poverty and homelessness is definitely something that needs to be addressed, this just isn't a good argument for why we should give to the Salvation Army and not other charities. It relies on the kind of dramatic emotional appeal that could be made in favor of practically any cause. If this is supposed to be a valid reason to support the Salvation Army, someone else could just as easily say, "If you don't support this charity, children in Africa are going to starve to death, slowly." Would we then be compelled to give to that charity instead? The argument being made here is identical. Of course, someone else could then respond with another striking example of families going hungry if we don't give to the Salvation Army, and then we'd once again have to donate to them.

So, would this ever-escalating exchange of emotional appeals force us to keep bouncing back and forth between giving to one charity, or another, or another? That seems kind of absurd, and it's easy to realize that this isn't a sound basis for deciding which charities we should support. And once we understand that this isn't so persuasive after all, it's plain to see why this argument doesn't work for the Salvation Army either. So when someone tells me, "Homeless people are going to freeze to death and it's your fault!", I can feel completely confident in saying, "So?" I have nothing against the homeless, of course - just like I don't have anything against the myriad other causes that I haven't donated to. But in this case, the Salvation Army simply isn't special.

What's interesting is that even once I've pointed this out, people are still reluctant to choose not to give to the Salvation Army. Even when they've been doing essentially the same thing all along by choosing not to give to other charities, they still insist that we should support the Salvation Army only. Somehow, supporting the Salvation Army at the expense of other charities is good, but supporting other charities at the expense of the Salvation Army is bad. But there's really no reason why the Salvation Army should be considered exceptional here, any more so than any other charities. Many of them do just as much good, usually with equal or greater efficiency.

It seems that for some people, their perspective here isn't derived from the actual outcome of giving to one charity and not another - which is roughly equivalent - but rather based on another factor entirely. I suspect that there may be some, to use the technical term, "weird stuff" going on in their heads. Obviously, feeding a starving child in India is in no way inferior or less valid than feeding a starving child in America. People are people, and people are equal. There's no particular reason to prefer giving to the Salvation Army versus another charity, so there's nothing wrong with choosing a group that doesn't endorse openly homophobic religious views. So why do people still insist on supporting the Salvation Army, even to the point of claiming that anyone who gives to another charity is basically killing the homeless?

I'm inclined to think that they consider donating to the Salvation Army to be a sort of default state, almost like something that's been chosen for them ahead of time, and they don't seem to act like they have as much responsibility for that. But once we make the decision to give to another charity instead, it's like we might as well have unleashed a pack of rabid wolves on families in poverty. What's up with that? It seems like there's something about actually thinking about this, and then making an intentional choice, that makes people more uncomfortable with the results of this, and causes them to feel more personally and directly responsible for the ultimate outcome. Even if that outcome is effectively identical.

This is actually a well-studied phenomenon in the field of ethics. There's a certain thought experiment known as the trolley problem which helps illuminate the differing attitudes toward making choices like this. For example, just hypothetically, would you prefer for one person to die, or five people to die? Most people would say that one person dying is preferable.

Now suppose that a train is speeding out of control, and there are five people on the track directly ahead of it who can't get out of the way. However, there's another track with only one person who can't get out of the way. You have the opportunity to pull a switch that will divert the train onto the other track, killing one person but saving the other five. Should you pull the switch? In this situation, not as many people are willing to choose for one person to die rather than five, when they're the one who's actually pulling the switch.

For another scenario, suppose you're standing on a bridge above an oncoming train that's about to run into five people. There's also a very large man next to you, large enough that if you push him off the bridge, his body will stop the train and save the other five people. Should you push him off the bridge? In this case, even more people refuse to do it, regardless of the fact that it would have the same result: one person dies instead of five.

Overall, the trolley problem isn't really about figuring out what the right choice is, so much as it's meant to demonstrate the interesting variations in people's decisions under different circumstances. It seems that people aren't as concerned about the actual results of their actions as they are with their perceived degree of personal involvement: from making an abstract choice, to pulling an actual switch to kill a person, to actively pushing someone in front of a train. Even when the outcome of taking action would be objectively better, many people still don't want to have anything to do with this.

And something similar seems to be going on here. For some people, continuing to give to the Salvation Army like they always have is viewed as the equivalent of just not touching the switch. They see it as something that was already going to happen, and they don't want to make an active choice to change this. But when we do consciously decide not to donate to the Salvation Army, they see us as becoming more personally involved, like throwing someone in front of an oncoming train. And that's when they tell us that we're effectively leaving homeless people out in the cold because we chose another charity instead. All of a sudden, we somehow become morally culpable in a way that they seem to think they aren't.

What they've failed to realize is that they're already just as involved as we are. They flipped that switch when they decided to let children around the world die for lack of food or clean water or medical care, so they could give to the Salvation Army instead. Yet this doesn't seem to bother them. So how can they expect us to be persuaded by the same argument that they themselves don't find convincing? They've made practically the same choice already. Why is it okay for them, but not for us?

Again, the Salvation Army is not special. There's no reason to think that they're the best charity out there or the only good option, and as I've explained, there are actually plenty of reasons not to give to them. And we don't have to feel bad about supporting other charities instead. Someone's probably going to die no matter what. But someone is going to be cared for, too. So don't be afraid. Pull the switch.

11 comments Filed under , , , ,

The Salvation Army and "the most good"

In the brief time since I proposed a boycott of the Salvation Army for their anti-gay policies, I've received quite a wide variety of responses. It's clear that there are a lot of people who weren't aware of this, and many of them have decided not to give to the Salvation Army for this reason. And that's exactly what I was hoping for - and I hope even more people will learn about this, too. At the same time, there are a significant number of people who defended the Salvation Army, and for one reason or another, don't see this as a sufficient cause to boycott them.

In particular, it was striking to see how many people are willing to ignore their policy of official homophobia, and don't consider this a dealbreaker in terms of giving them money. And I have to wonder if people would be so forgiving of an openly racist or anti-semitic organization. If they knew that a certain group had an official position stating that the white race is inherently superior, or Jews are just "imperfect Christians", would they still go right ahead and keep supporting them? Would that not make them stop and think that maybe they shouldn't involve themselves with such a group? It's interesting that they're apparently much more tolerant of discrimination against gay people - like this just doesn't matter to them. It really does seem to be one of the last acceptable prejudices.

Of course, some people have tried to turn this around and claim that we must be discriminating against the Salvation Army, and that not supporting them because of their anti-gay beliefs is somehow a kind of bigotry all its own. It's rather amusing that anyone would even attempt such a ridiculous argument. It's quite obvious that standing against bigotry, and taking action to discourage it, is not itself bigotry at all. Indeed, this stands in direct opposition to bigotry. It's kind of like saying that if you oppose racism, you must be "bigoted against racists". (Or racist against bigots.) The real bigotry at work here is the passive bigotry of those who would allow such discriminatory attitudes to proliferate unchecked, without ever lifting a finger to stop them. Arguably, choosing to let bigotry proceed without interference can mean being complicit in it yourself. But actively opposing it is most certainly not just another kind of bigotry.

Other people have attempted to minimize this issue by saying that the Salvation Army doesn't have a problem with gay people, only with the act of gay sex. But I don't see how that's supposed to be any better. There's still no legitimate reason to be against gay sex, just like there's no reason to object to being gay in and of itself, either. Besides, who do they think is having all the gay sex, anyway? Even if this is what they believe, it doesn't make their anti-gay policies any more acceptable. Really, is it supposed to be a good thing that they expect people to never have a loving, intimate relationship with another person, for no good reason at all? I don't see how. A position like that is still just as deserving of a boycott.

Meanwhile, some people have accused us of depriving the poor and the homeless of food and shelter by not giving to the Salvation Army. Obviously, this is not our intention whatsoever. If people do withhold their support from the Salvation Army, I certainly hope they'll give to another charity instead. We don't want to undermine services for those in need. But we also don't want to fund a group like the Salvation Army. And if not giving to the Salvation Army means we're letting the poor go hungry, you could just as well say that supporting the Salvation Army means letting children in Haiti die of cholera.

I would have to ask why people aren't willing to hold the Salvation Army itself accountable for attaching completely irrelevant homophobic policies to an otherwise very helpful operation. Where is their responsibility for driving people away from a worthwhile cause with needless bigotry? It's rather unreasonable to demand that people support your openly anti-gay organization under the implied threat that you'll have to throw poor people out on the street. That's just repulsive, and it really amounts to a kind of blackmail. In boycotting them, we're simply refusing to take the bait. So yes, we do want to make an impact on the Salvation Army itself. By making our support for them contingent upon whether they withdraw their anti-gay policies, they now have an incentive to do so. If we gave them our money regardless of what their policies were, they would never have any reason to change. And that's kind of the point of a boycott.

Others have said that the Salvation Army are the only ones providing vital services in some areas, and so there is no option but to support them. But clearly, there is another option, and this is really a self-reinforcing argument whose validity relies upon its own application. Of course there won't be any other groups providing these services, if everyone always donates to the Salvation Army. That's never going to change if you keep giving them your money - nobody else could ever get off the ground! If this is the reason you have to keep giving to the Salvation Army, it's only a reason because you keep giving to the Salvation Army.

Most significantly, nearly all of the objections to a boycott shared one common thread: that regardless of their anti-gay policies, the Salvation Army does a lot of good. The implication seems to be that this makes their homophobia more acceptable - as if that somehow makes up for it. It's surprising how many people think that this is what charity is about.

Certainly we're all familiar with the concept of penance, even in a secular context: when we've done something wrong, we try to make up for it. But what happens if you reverse this? Can you do something good in advance, so as to earn a certain amount of "moral currency" you can spend to permit yourself to do something bad? Not really. The entire point of making up for something bad is that you recognize that you were wrong to do it, you try to make things right, and hopefully you'll avoid doing that again. But there is no recognition of this wrongdoing, or intention of avoiding it in the future, when you continually use your good deeds to grant yourself a perpetual license to do harm. This seems rather inconsistent with the purpose of a charity.

Even the Salvation Army's own motto is: "Doing the most good." And that's a goal I would completely agree with. But many people, perhaps even the Salvation Army themselves, apparently have a concept of what "doing good" means that is completely at odds with this. Quite simply, they don't seem to actually care about doing the most good - emphasis on the "most". Instead, they're only concerned with maintaining a moral surplus of sorts, and staying out of the red. As long as they do enough good to break even and stay in the black, then they can squander as much of that goodwill as they want on doing bad things.

But this is obviously self-defeating. Why go to the trouble of doing so much good if you're just going to detract from it by doing harm? That's not "doing the most good" - it's only "doing mostly good". You aren't maximizing the good you do, you're just staying out of debt. That's not what a charity is for. If they truly want to do the most good, then they can do more good by doing less harm. And really, if this is supposed to be an excuse, then just how much does it excuse? How much harm would you allow them to do before you would no longer support them? And, once they've reached that point, how much more good would they have to do before you would support them again? This is certainly worth considering when your idea of morality is nothing but a balanced budget.

Once again, I'd like to thank everyone who watched the video and decided to join the cause. I hope you'll share it with people so more of them will know about this, and we might just make a difference here.

(crossposted from YouTube)

13 comments Filed under , , , ,

Suicidal? Have some Jesus!

Consider it a kind of litmus test: How do you react to a highly visible outbreak of suicide among teenagers, which is almost directly linked to anti-gay bullying? Perhaps with sympathy? Understanding? The recognition that this might just be a serious problem that needs to be addressed? The realization that something should be done about the bullying that's driving kids to suicide, and the intolerant attitudes that enable this harassment?

Or something else?

Mike Adams of Townhall.com provides an object lesson in how to fail at constructing a coherent argument, while blithely insulting those who have taken their own lives, all in the name of a fake god. It's hard enough to untangle whatever point he was trying to make by listing eight "suicides" of Christian homophobes who were rebuked for their Bible bigotry, which he then immediately demolishes by revealing that they're all alive and well. And yet apparently that was his point all along:

These eight cases are all true except for one thing: The Christians who were bullied by gays and gay activists are all still alive. Not a single one has committed suicide. That is because they have centered their lives around Jesus Christ, rather than their sexual identity. And no amount of bullying can change my mind about that.

Here we have a perfect example of someone who just doesn't get it. You might expect that Christians of all people would reject the kind of false moral equivalence that views fighting for acceptance and tolerance, versus spewing the mythologically-derived hatred that inspires people to take their own lives, as just two sides of the same coin. You'd be wrong, though. To people like Mike Adams, there is no difference between fostering a climate of hate based on ancient delusions, and being told to stop doing that. It's somehow just another form of bullying when you have to quit bullying people - if you can't bully others anymore, that means you're being bullied yourself. It's all the same thing: abuse and respect, damnation and love, prejudice and equality.

Yes, we've heard all this before: the deceptive argument from the intolerant that tolerance must, for the sake of consistency, permit acts of intolerance, or else become the same intolerance it so deplores. What they seem to have missed is that allowing intolerance to run wild does nothing to further tolerance at all, and actually works against it. It's hardly an act of tolerance to let intolerance proliferate, when this only serves to diminish tolerance overall. "Tolerating" intolerance is itself encouraging of intolerance.

It must have taken some serious willful ignorance to avoid realizing that his surprise revelation undermines everything preceding it. This supposed anti-Christian "bullying" (of having one's intolerance refuted) is equated in severity to the anti-gay bullying that drove teenagers to kill themselves - except, wait a minute, none of these Christians killed themselves after all! That makes it rather difficult to pretend the exact same thing is going on here. The reason these actual suicides are significant is because they demonstrate that anti-gay bullying can be so traumatic, people have literally chosen to die because of it. Opposition to Christian intolerance, as Mike Adams freely admits, has not driven anyone to that point. Nobody is killing themselves due to being smacked down for their bigotry. Consequently, it's hard to see why that's supposed to be such a big deal, or really a matter of concern at all.

Adams' conclusion - the argumentative equivalent of a Gainax ending - is almost too confusing to be insulting. Almost. What makes him so sure that identifying as gay causes one to commit suicide? What is it about living openly and honestly that's supposed to make you kill yourself? This is nothing more than blaming the victims for no clear reason whatsoever, rather than the harassment they experienced at the hands of homophobes who he would surely rush to defend. No, it's certainly not a problem that they were bullied for being gay, even to the point of suicide - it's their own fault for being so gay!

And really, is Christianity meant to serve as some kind of suicide prevention tactic? Does he actually think Christians never kill themselves, based on his own intentional selection of 8 Christians who aren't dead? That's hardly persuasive evidence of anything but his own biases. 76% of the country is Christian - do all the suicides happen to fall in the other 24%? Likewise, do all the gays fall in that 24%, too? "Gay" and "Christian" aren't mutually exclusive, after all. How is Christianity, especially Adams' hateful conception of it, supposed to help gay Christians who are still being bullied for being gay?

The entire notion of Christianity as a deterrent to suicide is disgusting. For someone who's on the verge of killing themselves and genuinely feels there's nothing left to live for, all Christianity can offer is the negative incentive of hellfire. It means telling someone whose life has become too painful to continue living that it's only going to get worse: not only is their current existence unbearable, but if they choose to end it, they're just going to be tortured forever instead. How is that supposed to help anyone who finds themselves in this situation? Not only are you threatening someone who desperately wants to end their pain with yet more unending pain, you're just telling them a lie about an imaginary afterlife to try and convince them otherwise. It means you don't even respect them enough to be honest with them. You're trying to wrest control away from them, urging them to incorporate your known falsehood into their belief system so that they'll act on it. You're taking it out of their hands entirely, rather than at least allowing them to make that decision for themselves - literally a matter of life and death - based on actual facts. There are plenty of reasons not to kill yourself, but doesn't someone who's reached that point still deserve the truth?

Everything Mike Adams has said here is simply twisting the knife after these kids have already killed themselves: "Haha! Should've been more Christian, faggots!" It's like he doesn't even care enough to take this seriously instead of joking about it and using their corpses as a platform to preach even more of the bigotry that helped kill them.

16 comments Filed under , , , ,

Religion is insane. Insane.

From USA Today comes this remarkable question: "'Test tube babies': God's work or human error?" Elaborating, they ask: "Do you think a baby conceived in test tube is still a child in the eyes of God?"

As always, it's interesting to see how neatly nontheism collapses questions like these. They are not "God's work", nor are they a "child in the eyes of God". Nobody is, because there is no god.

That probably wasn't the kind of answer they were looking for, though. But there can be no useful answer here, because the question itself is wrong. It's based on an irrelevant attribute - the location of fertilization - which they pretend has some bearing on an entirely fabricated property: whether a person is a "child in the eyes of God". The very idea is nonsense. How is such a property defined, and how can they tell if anyone possesses this quality in the first place? What makes you so certain that you're a "child in the eyes of God"? Such a trait has no apparent effects or physical manifestations, yet they treat it like it's just another potential birth defect to watch out for: "Ten fingers, ten toes, child of God..."

Clearly, whether someone is a "child in the eyes of God" can't be reliably determined, because it's not even meaningfully defined. So why does it merit any consideration, and why should it have anything to do with what we consider a person to be? Is there any real difference between someone who was conceived in a test tube, or a Fallopian tube? It seems the only differences are the ones we've invented, kind of like saying someone doesn't have a "soul" if they were conceived in North Dakota instead of South Dakota.

It's a shame that major publications would play along with this obvious game of make-believe like it was a serious issue. This only serves to lend credibility to religion's fiction by treating it as if it has any actual relation to reality. If you really think a baby is somehow special or metaphysically different in some ineffable way because it became a zygote while inside a woman's body, you're just wiping off the El Camino.

15 comments Filed under ,

WHAT? TWENTY THOUSAND!?

I'm subscribed to the American Family Association's mailing list, since I like to keep track of what they're up to - I suspect many people are subscribed for the same reason. Today, they sent yet another riveting missive: "An unusual request from American Family Association". My immediate impression was, wait a minute, everything they do is unusual by any rational standard. Like calling Home Depot the "Homo Depot", which I'm sure is really amusing if you're 12. Their latest cause, however, actually is pretty unusual:

With your help, YouTube has agreed to feature an AFA-produced patriotic video on their front page!

A few months ago, AFA commissioned Christian songwriter/singer Eric Horner to write a moving patriotic song to honor our national motto, "In God We Trust."

Without any fanfare, we posted it on YouTube. The response was so overwhelming that YouTube called us to find out what was going on!

The fact is, the video is patriotic and inspiring, and it shares the message of faith. People love it!

YouTube has told us that if we can get 20,000 people to watch the video, they will feature it on their front page. That means that the tens of millions of people who visit YouTube's website each day will be offered the opportunity to watch the video - a video with a Christian message!

Okay then. First of all, if your video currently has fewer than 20,000 views, YouTube is not going to be calling you about it. Maybe if it was 2 or 20 or 200 million views, but it's still rather implausible that YouTube would actually call you to "find out what's going on". (YouTube, being YouTube, would likely have a better idea of that anyway.) It is possible that they would email you and invite you to enroll your video in the Individual Video Partnership revenue-sharing program so that they can run ads on it. But this is fairly common and part of an automated process - it isn't that exceptional.

Getting 20,000 views on a video may seem like a lot, but in an absolute sense, it's still not especially significant. For instance, an above-average video of mine might get 20,000 views. This has happened many times, and it's not such an "overwhelming response" that anyone was calling me about it. Just for a sense of scale, here are a few select YouTube videos and their respective view counts:

This is what your anvilicious Christian takeover anthem, now sitting at 51,076 views, is up against. Good luck!

Now, as for their video being featured on the front page of YouTube if it gets 20,000 views, this is almost certainly false. That's not a guarantee that it will appear on the front page, and that specific number likely has nothing to do with it. There are videos with both higher and lower view counts that are listed in the featured section of the front page, and YouTube has stated that featured videos are now selected by an algorithm, not manually chosen. As for including them in the spotlight section of the front page, it seems unlikely that YouTube would choose to place a controversial and partisan message front-and-center on the site. That's something they tend to shy away from. And even if they were willing to do so, a threshold of only 20,000 would mean having to feature millions of other videos which meet that same requirement.

However, it's quite possible that their video will be featured in general, which is distinctly different from being highlighted on the front page. According to a YouTube employee I met with, videos that are enrolled in the revenue-sharing program are automatically entered into the pool of videos that can be "featured". Videos which are marked as featured aren't necessarily featured on the front page; they can be displayed as featured at the top of the related videos on an individual video page, or alongside search results. Many of my own videos have been featured in this way despite having fewer than 20,000 views, often being placed atop the pages of people criticizing me - which they just love.

In any case, there's no assurance their their video actually will be shown on the front page, and 20,000 views is a pretty low target to meet. It's hardly an "overwhelming" response - for me, that's just a decent day on YouTube. If anything, I'd expect their video to get more views from being mirrored on one of the many channels that ridicules tacky religious nonsense. Aim high, guys!

6 comments Filed under , , ,

Day +7: Wrapping things up

28-29 Sep 2010

I woke up at 2:30 PM, after getting maybe five hours of sleep. Strangely, I dreamed almost the entire time. It was very vivid and detailed. At one point, there was something so hilarious that I actually woke up laughing, although I had completely forgotten what was so funny. It must have been pretty great. I've heard of people waking up from fright, but laughter? Does this happen often?

Later, I recorded, edited and posted the latest video, which seems to have had a mixed-to-positive reception. I figured it would be somewhat controversial to say that even the religions that support gay people are still wrong. I do see how this is at least better than socially conservative religion, but it's still based on an incorrect and dangerous premise - that religious texts actually determine what's right and wrong. Agreeing with this, even to try and promote acceptance, is a risk I don't think we should take. Using the Bible as a source of ethics can backfire tremendously, and it's surprising that some people have apparently forgotten that.

I stayed up a bit late, and again, I was too tired to write something last night. The newspaper got in touch with me, and they're going to have a photographer come over tomorrow to take some pictures for the story. I thought that was pretty nice of them. My family is still trepidatious about this, and tried to tell me that being in the paper really isn't that important. And it may not be, but it seemed they meant to suggest I just shouldn't do this. What bothered me was the implication that hiding myself would be preferable to making the news for what I do. I don't get why I should want to do that, or why I should all of a sudden shift gears and try to stay out of the public eye. I think we crossed that bridge a couple million views ago.

It's just discouraging that my family apparently doesn't want me to be seen by the locals. This whole project is something that I've spent a lot of time and effort on, and it's actually getting results. That's important to me - it's why I do it. It's something that I'm, personally, proud of. I just wish my family didn't see it as something that should be kept secret. I wish I could do something that they would be proud of, too.

Anyway, this concludes my one-week followup after going off nootropics. It's been pretty fun, but I think I'm running out of things to write about every day, so I'm just going to resume my regular irregular schedule of only posting about things that are notable. Thanks to those of you who've been following along! Try some piracetam, if you can find it.

-Zinnia Jones, your friendly neighborhood transvestite

7 comments Filed under ,

Day +6: Early

27-28 Sep 2010

I woke up at 12:00 AM again, after getting about five and a half hours of sleep - not really enough. I did nap for a couple hours later in the evening, which I don't usually do, but I had to be well-rested and prepared to write something last night. I would have posted this earlier, but I was directing all my Writing Energies toward the next video, and by the time I was done, it was about 9 in the morning. It was worth it.

Do you ever envision a kind of idealized version of yourself? For instance, a "Zinnia" who just happens to go out more, has a slightly larger circle of friends, a more regular job, a car, knows how to drive and is working toward a degree in something? Sometimes I think about that, but then I realize that such a person would need to have priorities, motivations and goal systems so radically different from my own that they would hardly be recognizable as me. Ultimately, it's not worth dwelling on because if there was something I truly wanted, I would either be doing it already or I'm going to do it once I want it enough. I don't think "ambitions" really count as ambitions if you currently aren't driven towards realizing them. That probably sounds like a bit of a downer, but I just see it as having a more realistic concept of who you are.

I mentioned earlier that I usually read many books concurrently, instead of finishing one before starting on the next. I've decided to just focus on one at a time and make a list. From first priority to last, it currently consists of: Rage, Zendegi, Rethinking Life and Death, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, The Demon-Haunted World, Freethinkers, and We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families. I'm already half-finished with most of these. After that, I plan on reading Orlando, Paradise Lost, The Scarlet Letter and Why I Believed: Reflections of a Former Missionary, in some order.

What's on your reading list right now? What's your idealized version of yourself right now?

11 comments Filed under ,

Day +5: Death is not desirable

26-27 Sep 2010

I woke up at 12:00 PM, after getting maybe four and a half hours of sleep. That's probably not enough sleep! For some time after I woke up, I think I had something like low blood sugar. You know that sensation where you feel really faint and lightheaded, and your vision starts to dissolve just a bit, and you have to sit down so you don't fall down? That's what it was like. I suspect it was from not eating enough. Anyway, it got better, and we all went out to dinner and had a party for my sister at some upscale restaurant. It was pretty fun. Later, I passed on Machete Season to another family member, so they can have their optimism about the world appropriately crushed. Seriously though, it's a great book.

A lot of my viewers might not know this, but I'm an opponent of death. That sounds like it would be pretty obvious - other people usually don't like dying, either - but it's a bit more complicated than that. I actually think that it's a worthwhile and important goal to develop the necessary technologies to stop death. People tend to say "so what?" to that too; keeping people from dying tends to be a high priority. The difference is that I'd rather stop it entirely: all of it, postponed for as long as possible, if not indefinitely. I support human immortality, achieved through fully naturalistic means. And I don't mean that in the sense of continuing to age and decline, without actually dying, but rather not aging.

Surprisingly, or maybe not so much, a lot of people really don't like this idea at all. Some people have become very attached to the idea of human death, to the point that they'll defend it as an actual necessity. I've heard plenty of reasons for why it's a good thing that we die, from people who essentially argue that we should be required to, and that even if natural immortality is possible, we should not be allowed to choose it. Some of them simply don't want to live forever. That's understandable - if someone wants to die, then barring any mental illness, they should be allowed to. It's their life. But conversely, our lives are not theirs; they can make that choice for themselves, but not the rest of us. Personally, I'd rather continue living until I no longer wish to, if I ever reach that point.

Others believe that the universality of human death "gives meaning to life". But it's really life itself that gives meaning to life. We're forced to do as much as we can and enjoy it as much as possible in the limited time that we have, but why should it have to be limited? Why rush things, and inevitably miss out on so many more wonderful experiences? The fulfilling pursuits in our lives are themselves enjoyable, and it's not the fact that they must end which makes them so. They wouldn't become any less enjoyable if they didn't necessarily have to end - if anything, we would have the opportunity to appreciate them to an even greater extent than our limited lifespans allow. And if some urgency really is necessary to make our lives worth living, does that mean increasing our average lifespan to 70-80 years has weakened our ability to enjoy life? Likewise, would once again reducing our lifespan to 30-40 years make our lives even better?

The concept of death as necessary, even good, is only the result of having to tolerate it. Of course we have to find ways to move past it or look for some silver lining, no matter how flimsy. We have to convince ourselves that it had to happen, or even that it was right to happen. We need to rationalize it - which is what we do when something isn't rational to begin with. If death simply never happened, it's unlikely that we would come up with any good, compelling reasons for why everyone should be subjected to it (often at random). We don't need to be punched in the face on a regular basis in order to appreciate not being punched in the face, and we almost certainly wouldn't come up with an idea like this and willingly subject ourselves to it in order to heighten our enjoyment of the times when nobody is punching us. Not being punched is already pretty nice on its own.

What it all comes down to is that life is good, and more of life is even better. People are extraordinarily valuable. Each human mind is inherently worthwhile, and worth preserving. Death is not just "a part of life", or the next phase of our existence, or any of the vaguely comforting platitudes we tell ourselves to help get through the grief. It is the absolute, final, complete destruction of a unique, intelligent human mind, one which will never exist again. It means a person was literally destroyed. I can't think of anyone who truly deserves that - let alone everyone, ever. It's difficult to fathom the mindset of someone who could think of Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, Alan Turing, Albert Einstein, Norman Borlaug, Paul Dirac, Charles Darwin and all the rest, and how many more wonderful things they could have accomplished if they had all the time in the world... and say "hey, good thing they died!"

People should not have to die. Minds should not have to be obliterated, ground into dust, lost forever. Our lives should not have to end. Anyone who tells you that death is necessary, and we must not avoid it even if we can, is willing to condemn you, the people you love, the people who love you, everyone you know, to utter annihilation. Whether you like it or not.

I'm not okay with that. If you want to die, that's up to you. But please don't tell me I have to lose everyone, including myself, when there could be a better option.

35 comments Filed under , ,