incipit vita nova

St. Francis - First for Animals and the Environment

St. Francis of Assisi is revered by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  His 12th Century life is the stuff of legend, and the very best kind.

Even as a small child, I adored looking at pictures of St. Francis and the animals.  His simple stories and beautiful prayers were so truthful and moving.

Now, I feel more strongly about the environment and the natural world each day, and I completely connect with Francis' understanding of creation.  How precious animals are!

I had been told that Catholic teaching insisted upon telling children that their puppies and kitties weren't going to go to heaven (followed by a rap on the knuckles for good measure).  I think this has to have been Catholic School hooey, because I found this description of how to explain these concepts to children.  Bottom line?  Because animals are part of God's creation, they will be there in heaven.

I suppose my favorite story about St. Francis was how he preached to the birds.  I had no wonderment whatsoever about this; it seemed natural to me that he would want to speak to the birds and that they would listen.  These spiritual stories are a close match for stories of Buddha and the animals.  Many other spiritual traditions also revere animals and teach respect for the natural world. 

The interesting thing about writing about animals or "creatures" is that it's necessary in many ways to "anthropomorphize" them, no matter how much one might wish not to do so.  One way to work against this is to closely observe the animals to which we are close, or to observe animals in nature.  Because we must use human language in writing stories, there will always be some "anthropomorphizing."  However, the traits we give animal characters do not have to correspond with obvious human ones as seen in many fables.  This has been one of the most interesting aspects of my current fantasy books; how these nonhuman characters are genuine, distinct individuals and not "animal-shaped people."  For this, I think, I can thank my early exposure to St. Francis, who taught this kind of respect from the very beginning.

Aspergers and Atheism

As geneticists have begun to discover recently, there are familial relationships involved in Asperger's Syndrome - i.e., entire families that all have Aspergers.  I am of the opinion, after spending a number of years in the science fiction/fantasy community that Aspergers can also be associated with a sort of fussy, cranky intolerance for others' ideas and beliefs.  Sometimes people with Aspergers, or touches of Aspergers, are uncomfortable with, not only ambiguity, but also challenges to their preconceived and firmly-held convictions that may not have a basis in fact.

In selecting what they believe to be an alternative belief system to organized religion (or disorganized religion, I guess), people who are concerned with newer Atheist ideas and movements are particularly fixated on the negative.  They conflate the Bible with all religious belief; to them - the existence of contradictions or uncertainties within the Biblical text instantly "disprove" all religion.  Of course, the Bible, in its multifarious editions, is a book followed by one religion, but historically, encountering contempt and opposition from Christians, Atheists in the West seem to have focused almost completely on providing information that they believe debunks Christianity.  Only now is the American Atheist website beginning to address issues of inconsistency or objections to Islam - a religion that currently has a militant wing that lends literal credence to Dawkins' claims that religion is the "root of all evil."

The biggest question in reading the Bible is right up front in Genesis.  If Adam and Eve were the first man and woman, where did the woman who married Cain come from?  That one immediately occurred to me, and I guess I must be a retard, because it didn't shake my faith in Christ.  It just made me wonder where they went wrong - and realize there were parts of the story most definitely lost in the mists of time. There are lots of "official explanations" for this - some people believe that the woman from Nod who married Cain was actually another descendant of Adam and Eve and torturously explain many generations and hundreds of years passing, while others think there were other people around, and that Adam and Eve were not "created" literally in an instant by the hand of God in an isolated garden of Eden (as seen on "Star Trek"). 

Jacob at Contextual Criticism is celebrating Darwin's bi-centenary birthday by saying, "The problem with creationists is simple: they begin with a belief and then attempt to fit the evidence to conform to that belief. They operate in a manner exactly opposite of the scientific method. 

Oh, Jacob, you rationalist!  Everyone knows that REAL scientists ALWAYS follow the "real scientific method"!  First, Creationists literally believe the words in Genesis, and they believe them in a manner that fits the translation at hand, and assumes that the words written down long ago correspond to today's concepts - i.e., days, months, years, etc.  Many people disagree with them, or do not feel that their faith in God is mightily shaken by the difficulties in conforming that account with what our eyes and ears and minds tell us today. 

Point being - the truly rational person views each subject or issue as it comes.  I know that Christ is real due to personal knowledge.  I can't share that with a skeptic or irrational nonbeliever or really, anyone else.  It is my personal knowledge based upon my own experience.  I can read and receive illumination from the Bible.  Neither of those two things means any injury to others whatsoever.  And I am greatly fortunate that I do not, on a daily basis, have to risk my life in the service of my faith, and also fortunate that I live in a nation where my speech is free, and I have the right to worship as I choose without interference.  These are rights that represent rational advances and improvements in how people are best able to live with each other and move forward as a species.

Point being - religion cannot be replaced by "science" and it doesn't do "humanists" credit to ignore the pitfalls inherent in the human condition.  There might be an idealized "scientific method" just as there are Gospels in the Bible.  What people make of either of those things is, by definition, going to be imperfect.  Creationists may well search for evidence to fit their specific interpretation of the words in Genesis.  And people also believed in Piltdown Man for the better part of sixty years, and Clovis First for nearly 80.  There are countless examples of physical evidence being overlooked in service of a dominant scientific theory at various times - and not a single one of them "Creationism."  Mr. Rational Humanist above states that the Theory of Evolution is "proven" and therefore must be taught - he also includes the theory of relativity and "atomic theory" and "quantum theory."  Uh, Jacob - some movement has occurred in these areas.

Clearly, the flaw in each sort of thinking is similar.  Whereas rigid creationists are focused on fixing and pinning down a living faith in a strict definition with no room for change or additional comprehension, fixated Atheists are similarly focused on "proving" a negative.  A true rationalist might call him or herself a "changeist."  A true scientific textbook for students would encourage them toward positive investigation and questioning at all times.  We are never going to know it all, and the biggest blinder that human beings have is their own ego, or their own intellectual limitations.  All those scientific "mistakes" or wrong paths - they are coming from the same mentality that gave Galileo a hard time.  There was solid evidence at Monte Verde in Chile for years that there were native peoples in the New World long before the "Clovis" people - and the French female scientists working there were humiliated and denigrated out of all proportion to their - correct, and beneficial, work.  This is the RULE, not the exception.  By applying the same sort of thinking to religious beliefs, progress can hardly be made. 

And, according to this most excellent book, The Survivor's Club by Ben Sherwood, Dr. Harold Koenig at Duke University Medical Center has discovered evidence that people of ANY religious faith who regularly attend services live as much as seven years longer, on average, than those who do not have firm religious convictions.  Dr. Koenig, a man of religious faith, makes it clear that his studies do not mean that "God is preserving the life" of those who believe and/or observe religious practices.  There are numerous physical and mental health benefits associated with the actions related to religious practice - real and quantifiable - that appear to be related to these results.  You see, there is one great basic in all religious traditions, Eastern and Western, with which I am familiar.  Each teaches us that we are not alone.  It teaches us that we are part of something greater than our own lonely, individual selves.  This, in my way of thinking, automatically encourages a feeling of respect for the world around me, and helps me to understand that my own individual concerns are not where the world begins, and stops, turning.  It makes it easy for me to be an environmentalist, for I understand that it is not my place to despoil and destroy the world in which I live - a simple concept that most animals also innately abide by (Bears do defecate in the woods, but they sure don't sleep in it).  It makes it simple for me to accept and admire others who are different from me, because I can see that we are all part of a much larger, greater creation.

Science, and what some feel is akin to "intelligent design" shows us the same type of thinking - so much broader than our individual prejudices - about growth, change, acceptance and giving.  So there is little wonder I would fight angry, negative, destructive Atheists.  They defend neither science nor nature, and do nothing but discredit upon themselves and others.

Categorization, Classification: Militant Atheist

I wonder if some of the fervor of the New Atheist movement is a response to the human need to categorize and define.  I'll gladly link to this National Geographic special and information, because I think that learning about and looking into the life and studies of Charles Darwin is a worthwhile endeavor.  I'm fairly certain that Richard Dawkins will go beyond the basic points of memorial for the bi-centenary of Darwin's birth and points regarding evolution to re-fighting the "faith" vs. "Darwinism" argument that is so old-hat by now that it makes me want to take a cattle prod to the "faithful faithless."

I believe the rhetorical construct used by Dawkins to make those of faith sound like cretins is called a "straw man."  Yes, there are people who believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, and many of them do so based on pseudo-scientifical analyses of Biblical texts.  Dawkins indicates that while "ignorance is no crime," it is a negative activity to ignore "evidence" in favor of faith, for which there is no "evidence."  Dawkins calls upon viewers to "think upon four billion years of slow, gradual evolution," which is in itself, a difficult concept considering that the average person probably doesn't know much about his or her own great-grandparents - where they lived, how they lived, and who their friends and other relatives were.  Multiply that by 500 million generations (check my math), and the scales of time being considered are truly vast and inconceivable except by abstraction.  I have myself, as a teacher, received papers fervently defending "creationism" using pseudo-scientific methods.

Point being, these two approaches are of equal rigidity and approximately equal invalidity.  Today, there exists no firm scientific proof of how life arose to begin with.  Much is known, and there are a number of theories, each with its own good points.  It occurred to me while in graduate school and reading the works of brilliant naturalist, writer - and sincere, thoughtful and non-militant Atheist - John Fowles, that what he was attempting to communicate in the natural history portions of The French Lieutenant's Woman is also communicated in its own way to those of faith through the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians, verse 13.  I actually wrote a critical text comparing the concept of "as through a glass, darkly" to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

I just wrote about the Tarsiers, bush babies and last week, the Aye-Aye.  Each of these species, with the possible exception of the "bush baby," is under some taxonomical dispute, with morphology, biology and DNA all indicating different interpretations of how these animals should be classified or viewed in relation to other animals, and from an evolutionary perspective.  In the real world, the existence of these animals is a wonder, as is the entirety of creation.  Some of us have a natural or innate sense that the wonder of life that is our world, is a precious thing, a miracle, and by its very nature of combined simplicity and complexity (as the fractal arises from a single mathematical formula). 

All that faith really is, is a natural comprehension that there are things that people cannot know right now, and that they may never know, and that there is, in fact, something greater than all of us - something more.  It is sometimes said that women find faith "easier" than do men, and this possibly arises, as in the case of nuns willingly becoming the "brides of Christ," because women receive consistent cues from girlhood onward that they are not the "top of the heap" as far as social relations are concerned.  Men, on the other hand, may find the thought that there is something "more" and "greater" more difficult, because their biological and social history tells them that they must be in control, be the providers, and be the ones in charge.  With each new generation in our rapidly-evolving and ever-changing world - this too may change, and may even be changing this minute as I type this.

It is unscientific to believe that we have immortal souls.  It is in Dawkins' opinion, irrational and unscientific to believe in God - yet he cannot "prove" God's non-existence, and I rather think that there is sufficient evidence, for those to see, in addition to the Word of God and the example of Christ, given to us to reveal more than was known before, that there is most certainly a higher power.  God would not have given us minds to comprehend, or hands to work, or the capacity to reason, if He did not desire us to reason - to learn more, to understand, to investigate and search.  I still believe that He has his mysteries, and I believe that based upon the words of Paul.  Everyone who knows the Gospels should know that the letters of Paul are exactly that - letters of Paul written to the different churches to help them all through different questions of faith.  Indeed, there was someone, long ago, who set down the words of Genesis, and set them in a form that fit human comprehension at that time.  One can see the evolution of understanding of behavior, of roles with each other in society, and basic ideas of "right" and "wrong" moving throughout all of the books of the Bible.  The Bible itself was, and is, an evolving document - just as life.

In other words, Dawkins does not disprove my faith nor make me into a cretin by suggesting that the only choices for faith are to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old and to disbelieve the work of Darwin, which so illuminated our world - and to those of faith (as Darwin was himself) - illuminated another corner of the "dark glass," which we are told is to mean a "brass mirror."  Our lives are short.  Some of us believe in reincarnation, while others of us believe that we have one, single life, and one immortal soul.  To investigate, to learn, and to illuminate is not forbidden by God, it is blessed by Him, and as we should all recognize, there is so much that we do not currently "know" due to scientific proof, that the evolution of our knowledge and capacity as human beings is part of a journey that we are all, as a species, taking.  Is there a day beyond which those who follow will not be able to comprehend those who came before - the so-called "singularity"?  As one who by definition, was born "before," I cannot answer that, and by definition, cannot have full comprehension of it.

That wikipedia link actually has the illustration of "the rise of man" at the top - i.e. from hunched australopithecine to "modern homo". The very nature of that picture shows its rigidity and commitment to an archaic view of "progress" that implies that what came before, is somehow inferior to what is to come.  Are animals of today "superior" to their antecedents?  This is not at all a certainty - either from a faith perspective or a science perspective.  The only certainty - is change.  And that is what is wrong with "creationists," because their worldview encompasses a static world, created "magically" in a comprehensible, simple manner, as a child sets up a diorama.  And that is what is wrong with Dawkins as well, because Darwin recognized clearly the limitations of his investigations - he recognized that he had uncovered a portion of the mirror, and a path for others to further investigate and discover.  There is no end.  There is no final stopping point or goal of earthly perfection, where all truths will be known, and there will never be "something more."  Paul was given the ability to reveal portions of the mirror to Christians through his writings.  To the Ephesians:  "World without end."

Try These On for Size

First off, this is not meant to offend my honest Atheist friends who sincerely do not believe in a higher power.  They have the right to their beliefs and opinions in America, which is granted by the First Amendment.  They have the right to express their opinions.

I first noticed the situation with the official American Atheist organization when I was in grade school, because my best friend's father was a card-carrying (signs in yard and on car too) Atheist.  His vehement belief system basically set my friend up for daily schoolyard beatings, tauntings and teasing.  Me?  I spent 3-5th grades basically defending her.  For example, her dad insisted that she follow the awesome example of Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her use of her son to eliminate prayer in schools.  He instructed her to showily stand up and leave the classroom when the Pledge of Allegiance was being said each morning.  That's right - because of "One Nation, Under God." 

Then, a few years ago, I was watching the news, and it must surely have been one of the "One Nation Under God" debates.  A very attractive and pleasant-seeming young woman who was representing the American Atheist position was debating with others.  In response to one person's statements in favor of the inclusion of this phrase in the Pledge, her face suddenly contorted, her eyes bugged out and she screamed, "Jesus said he came with a sword!"

As a Bible-reading Christian, I thought, "What?"  So therefore, as I was teaching at the time and the students were looking into First Amendment issues, I visited the American Atheist website.  That was when I discovered their Bible obsession.  To this day, they still haven't really looked into any other religions other than their twisted misunderstanding of Christianity, and they still use the exact same tired arguments used for years and years.

It's not as though Christians have much better "arguments" (faith is faith - that's basically that). 

However, it occurred to me the other night that the same idiotic argument method incorporated by the Atheists can easily be used against them.  For a supposed genius, Richard Dawkins is really the one that made me think these people weren't just crazy, they were Savonarola crazy. 

At any rate - what would American Atheists replace their view of Christianity with?  Hmn.  Well, let's try science and the scientific method.

Ah.  OK, so the Tuskeegee Experiment proves that science is good, and the scientific method cures all ills.  Forty years of Piltdown Man - awesome!  And of course - the Bell Curve.

I think the superiority of thought and overall movement toward the good of humankind provided through science and the scientific method can easily be seen through these and other fine scientific projects, firmly-held beliefs, and experiments.  Oh!  Yes - scientists are always right.  That's why we have a thorough understanding of the weather and can predict earthquakes and have cured cancer.  And the common cold.

Denvention Day 4 - I Was A Knowitall on a Panel!

I know.  I know.  My first convention was the WorldCon in Los Angeles in 1996. I went to Clarion, I wrote SF, and I corresponded - in those days "for real," primarily - with a few people, both inside and outside of the SF/F community.  I was, at the time, going back to Chapman University to get my MFA, based on the encouragement of two decidedly non-SF writers and teachers, Jerome Brooks from the University of Chicago and Carol Bly, who I recently learned had died last year of ovarian cancer.  Looking at that picture of Carol, tears come to my eyes.  It is a marvelous article.  Yes, Carol was married to Robert Bly - and as the article said, they had four children and did not say anything bad about each other whatsoever - reminiscent of me and Mike (I was married for 15 years to Mike Casil and we are still friends and co-parent our daughter Meredith).  I guess I can look back and say I did at least one thing right, in that case.  As to Carol and Robert - each continued on their own creative paths.  She was - the best.  As to Jerome Brooks, a beautiful writer and human being - Jerry taught me the value of language, and he taught me that I could believe in myself.

So, here I am at the World Science Fiction Convention in Denver twelve years later.  Meredith is about to turn 16.  She'll always be "bal" to me (her baby nickname).  But she's her own person now and, fantastically, her art talent just began to explode when she was fourteen.  As I told my friend Brad Templeton yesterday, she's beginning to get "the dreams" and - I didn't tell Brad, but she's - well, I think she could have more talent than my mother.  It isn't that I'm an untalented artist.  I'm a facile one - and that is not the same thing.  Meredith has blinding talent and it's the real deal.  Nothing can, or will, stop her.

This is John Moore, who was moderating the panel on Genetic Engineering that I participated in yesterday.  I hadn't realized before that John was a chemical engineer - I knew him as the handsome princely author of very funny, cool fairy tale books with a "twist."  Other panel members were Mary Rosenblum and Tom Trumpinski (who I hadn't known before).  Mary has, of course, written for Asimovs for a long time now, and I had met her - on or about that 1996 "these are conventions?" year.  She has a book out that I saw, I think at WorldCon two years ago - an actual Standalone Sci Fi Novel, which makes her one of the very few and proud.  Mary's current book looks to be out from Fairwood Press (yay, Patrick and Honna!).  Tom is a professor at the University of Illinois - Champaign, and has a new nonfiction book of essays.

So, this incredibly long digression is just to say: after twelve straight years.  After at least three "Let the Lady Speak!" panel experiences (this is where the all-male panel talks, all together, all at once, uninterrupted, for forty minutes - until someone on the audience stands up and yells, "Let the Lady Speak!), after any number of other boneheaded panel nightmares (people will fill in the blank here - don't forget that I both get along with and like David Brin, though I know David has chewed plenty of scenery in his day) ----

I was, hold your breath everyone -

THE EXPERT ON THE PANEL.

I was, yes, the most knowledgeable person about genetic engineering.  I get the impression from the panel description that programming wanted us to talk about frog-men and kitkat women, and Mary did mention "glow in the dark" cats from France.  This looks, actually, to be three kittens from Korea.   

However, I don't really believe that people will genetically modify themselves in such freakish ways for a very long time, if ever.  So, I think I was able to answer some questions about the types of research in genetic treatments or techniques that are currently being conducted, such as cancer vaccines and treatments for specific conditions.  There was a nice lady in the first row who was trying to assist me in saying "hypoplastic left HEART syndrome."  Yes, she was right and I just had -

y'all know I'm psychotically shy, right?

Hypoplastic left heart syndrome or HLHS, as portrayed in "Perfect Stranger."  Here is a link to the Biology in SF blog (she lives in Yucaipa - isn't that awesome?) discussing these exact issues. And to "Perfect Stranger," a perfect match for the once-in-a-lifetime - I was the actual expert on the panel experience.  Story is also on the right-hand side of the page and I expect will go up on Book View Cafe (WHUT?  WHUT'S THET? - LEARN MORE IN SEPTEMBER!).  Unlike some people, I actually have material written in recent days, weeks and months, rather than . . . OK, I went to the WorldCon in LA in 1996 as a newbie, just having published a couple of stories, with a few others in the pipeline.

There's people with tip jars who've neither written nor published anything since that time!  And they even have "fans."  Goes to show you there does need to be some cleaning out of the gene pool - I'll say that.  I am certain my bud Brad Templeton would agree with me.  I've known Brad and a great number of other people, such as Kris Rusch and Dean Smith (Dean said he did 2 yrs. of the Senior PGA, but it didn't work out, and then he turned to World Series of Poker - now he's back writing again) since '96.  Some people who haven't worked in the industry since, oh, I guess 99 or so - they thought I was a "fan."

Uh, no.  Sorry about that.  I very much admire and enjoy the field - but I'm a writer.  I never wanted to send my work out too discriminately - considering what I know about some former editors, I thought it was a poor idea.  The Helix disaster was a very public manifestation of this problem.  In private, genuine lunatics have had these jobs here and there, with horrible educations and worse taste.

So, I know exactly what to do now with The Fire Gryphon.  It makes me very happy to know I will be able to work with people with great educations, who are supportive, kind and brilliant.  In the words of the Doctor - "brilliant!" 

A Simple, Awkward Prayer

This story has been published - better-told, I'm certain.  It is now nearly 20 years later.  But I remember the prayer, I remember the way the high ceiling looked, I remember the empty, dusty shelves.  I remember her face, and the little boy's face.  He would be the age now, that I was then, or nearly so.  I hope he is through college.  And I hope his mom has her own car dealership, or a house in Tahoe -- she said she loved the area so much.  And if anyone ever deserved dreams come true, it was her and her little boy.

When I was 26 years old I took a job as the director of Family Service Assn. in my hometown of Redlands, California.  Even though my husband and I had struggled when we were first married, those days were over.  I was proud of my nice clothing, nice shoes, and nice new car.  Family Service was a very old, traditional organization that helped very poor, and homeless families in emergencies.  The greatest help we could give was from our food pantry.  It was stocked full of food, like a grocery store.  The building was a former church, and the entire pantry was the former sanctuary.  The seats in the waiting room were the former pews.

I had been there about three months when summer came.  I had been warned that food often ran short in the summer, but I paid little attention.  It seemed there were endless boxes of donated cans, rice and beans to fill the shelves.  Also, a man had begun to donate day-old bread from his delivery route, so we also had that to give.  The bread went quickly, though.  Many people from the neighborhood knew about it, and gathered at the door each morning to rush in and take a loaf or two. 

One day, the morning "rush" was over.  It was almost lunchtime and I had told the others to go.  I was working in my office when our receptionist Loretta called back to say there was a lady in the waiting room and she needed help.  I walked out to see a pale, thin young woman sitting on the pew, with a little brown-haired boy at her side.  I greeted her, but before she could stand or say anything, the little boy noticed the bread box and ran to it, grabbing the only thing that was left:  a smashed package of hotdog buns left behind because -- who would want that?  He immediately tore the plastic and put a handful of bread in his mouth.

"No, Danny, that's not ours -- put that back!" she said, trying to put the package back the way it was. 

I realized that I was seeing hunger -- true hunger -- for the first time in my life.

"It's all right," I said, telling her that the bread was free to anyone.  She still looked reluctant and ashamed as I asked her to come to my office with her son. 

There, she told me why she was asking for help. She was a waitress at Denny's, and her husband had left a few months before because he couldn't "take the responsibility" of their little boy.  She had tried to ask her family for help, but they had never approved of the marriage, and said that her struggles were her own fault.  She made enough to pay the rent and bills -- they had no car -- but there was less and less left for food every week.  This last week, she said that all they had left was Cheerios. 

She was very pale, and the boy was pale also.  I said, "When did you last eat?"  She didn't answer for a long while, and then she said, "three days ago," but that she had given Danny the last of the milk that morning.

"I'll get you food right away!" I said, hurrying to the pantry.  I felt so ashamed of my nice clothing, and my fancy, expensive shoes, but I thought, at least I could give her plenty of food. 

That was the morning we had run out of food.  The pantry was row after row of empty shelves.  All that was left was a can of beets, and a can of sauerkraut. 

It was then that I said the first honest, sincere, real prayer of my entire life. I had prayed before many times, but I never really understood it.  I never felt as though I was speaking to the Lord before that day. I looked up at the high ceiling and said, "Please, Lord, don't let this lady and little boy go hungry. I will serve you and follow you. Please don't let us run out of food again."

Fighting back tears, I remembered there was something:  my lunch.  I got it and took all the money I had from my purse:  a $20 bill.  I came back to my office with the lunch and gave it to the little boy, who immediately ate the apple, smiling. 

"I'm sorry, I said," handing her the money.  "We . . ." I could hardly choke out the words.  "We ran out of food today."

She refused the money several times until I went to her and pressed it into her hand.  "Please," I said.  "It's my money.  You have to use it for your little boy."  And she started crying and took it.

I told her that I'd heard that they were hiring at a local car dealership.  That was true -- it had been announced at one of my fancy Chamber of Commerce meetings that morning.  She thanked me and hugged me and left.

I immediately picked up the phone and started dialing.  I called every newspaper, and every radio station I could think of, and even the television station (it's a small town - there weren't that many).  I told them that we had run completely out of food, and to please bring more.

After about half an hour, even our receptionist had gone to lunch, and I was alone in the building.  Then, the back doorbell rang, where people brought deliveries.  I opened the door to see two men in white polo shirts and shorts standing there grinning. 

They gestured to two flatbed trucks parked outside.  "We're from Redlands Christian School," they said.  "We had a summer can drive."  The trucks were full, with over 5,000 pounds of food. 

Since I was standing there unable to speak, they thought I might be upset because they hadn't called ahead.  They looked at each other and one said, "You called," and the other said, "No, you said you called."  I finally got the words out and told them what had happened.  When they saw the empty shelves, they were ready to start another can drive.

I did not see the young woman again for more than a year.  The prayer was answered -- beyond all belief.  We had more than enough food, even enough to give to organizations in poorer areas, like South Los Angeles.  At Thanksgiving, we were packing food boxes for hundreds of poor, working families.  I was outside with five or six board members, when a shiny, new white pickup pulled up.  A young woman got out, and walked across the street toward me.

I didn't recognize her until she was right beside us.  Smiling, she hugged me and pointed to the truck and its dealer plates. 

She had gone to the grocery store that day, and then to the car dealership to apply for a job.  She had returned to school and excelled, and was now the office manager.  The truck was full of turkeys donated by the dealership.  She had a roll of money in her hand, which she pressed into mine, just as I'd given her the money on that day.  It was her money that she'd saved.  It was for the children, she said.  And then her little boy Danny ran out of the truck toward us.

I told the board members that it was her, and that he was the little boy.  She said that I'd changed her life that day.  I told her, "No, I didn't do it.  He did."

And she did.

--------------------

This is a true story.  The pantry ran out of food in July, 1988.  The Thanksgiving was November, 1990.

Religious Mockery/Count Your Blessings

This is the time of year we should count our blessings and be thankful.  Above all, I'm thankful for my beautiful daughter, for my beloved Badger and for all my friends and those I love so dearly.  I'm thankful for my wonderful job, for my house, for my shocking amount of clothes, and for all the many creature comforts I have.  I'm so thankful for the opportunity to tell my stories, and for all the people who've been so very good and kind to me, and for the people who've read what I've written and enjoyed it.

And any time I might be tempted to feel sorry for myself, or lament my sad family background or the tragedies I've experienced, I can remind myself of this poor guy.  This is a picture of D.E. Paulk, the current pastor of a large, once well-known and successful Atlanta-area church:  Chapel Hill Harvester Church.  D.E. thought that his uncle Earl Paulk, now 80 years old, had promoted him to be the head pastor about a year and a half ago.  D.E. was just mistaken in one detail.  It wasn't his uncle that promoted him -- it was his blood father.

That's right, old Earl slept with his sister-in-law (Earl's brother Don, D.E's former father and current uncle isn't exactly "clean" himself) and kept it a secret from his own son for 34 years.  The truth only came out in a paternity test ordered in a completely separate lawsuit filed by another, unrelated woman against Earl for his sexual depredations.  One would think that at 80, Earl might be running out of steam.  One might think that -- but it doesn't sound like Earl's been inclined to slow down much.

With a membership of more than 10,000 in the 1990's, the church is now down to about 1,500 members.  It's schools and other auxiliary services have closed down.  And that old pal Earl passed it all on to the man who thought he was his nephew -- who just turned out to be his son. 

My heart goes out to the younger family members.  "The sins of the fathers . . ."  They have been visited, sadly, and I hope that these couples and their children can truly work toward a better future.  Because there's just not too much to say about this kind of hypocrisy, perversion and brutality.  I could say I've known somebody like that -- except that Earl was GOOD at it. 

Bye Bye Fairy Larry

This isn't (I guess soon to be) former U.S. Senator Larry Craig.  This is Ben Stein, one of the coolest individuals of Hebraic extraction ever.  Ben has defended Larry Craig, stating he was "lynched twice," once in Minnesota in the controversial men's bathroom stall, and once by the press.

Well.  I think Ben is amazing.  But I disagree.  I sincerely believe Larry Craig is gay and always has been.  I'm not an expert on men's bathrooms, but most towns (including Redlands) have had public restrooms that act as gay rendesvous sites.  I say "have had" because the police periodically patrol these locations and arrest perpetrators, which puts a damper on the behavior for a while. The behavior Larry Craig was arrested and charged for committing is a common practice in this type of rendesvous bathroom.

Like Ben would know that?  He sincerely thinks that Larry Craig could be innocent.  He understandably has fears that he, as a straight man, might get picked up the same way for having a "wide stance" while using the toilet.

Uh.  I don't think so, although it's not like I'm an authority. What we women have to worry about in public restrooms is women who won't use the seat cover, and who insist on standing to pee.  Like, they don't want their rears to touch the seat others have used.  They're too lazy or finicky to use the seat covers which are always provided.  In fact, so few use these items that when bathrooms are out of toilet paper, there are always abundant seat covers handy, so that it's easy to cover the seat and use a couple more to wipe.

Representative Barney Frank has made supportive statements regarding Larry Craig -- the very guy that Craig officially opposed over the years, and who's been a successful, openly-gay representative throughout his career.  I respect Barney Frank's opinion too, and it makes good common sense.  However, Craig has been under a "gay cloud" for so long that his double life does mean, in my opinion, that he can't be trusted and should do as he's done -- step down.  It is now up to him to make things right with his family and friends.  I hope he'll make the right choice.  But as they say, "past performance is the best indicator of future behavior."  And it seems as though this is a man incapable of being honest. 

I have a pretty good idea of "Fairy Larry's" modus operandi over the years.  It stands for his "gayness" more than anything else.  Someone thought to be gay by many throughout his life, he railed against gay rights and marriage.  And gay people aren't the only ones to have noticed this suspicious behavior pattern -- those who "protest too much" are almost always privately practicing the behaviors they say they hate so much in public.  Look at his picture!  It screams "uptight" and "I've got to come out!"

I'm sorry we live in a society where people still think they have to live "double lives," practicing their sexuality in private, secretive encounters while publically denouncing people of more courage who publically live with same-sex partners or who don't hide their sexual preferences.  I wouldn't be against Craig if he honestly admitted his sexual preference and took a new stance regarding the gay right to dignity and respect.  I don't think there's any chance of that.  But maybe as time goes on, the Larry Craigs of the world will just age out of the game, and the closet will become even more a sad part of the past than it is today.

Why Are Some Things Offensive? A Q & A for Scuffs

Why is it offensive for someone to make assertions like,

"Most highly intelligent people are atheists"?

Hmn.  Let's see.  Because it's an assertion that would require considerable testing and surveying to confirm -- and people have better uses for such survey and test funding and time -- or one would hope.  And the question automatically suggests that, if the person who sees or hears this does happen to have some type of religious belief, he or she is likely not considered "highly intelligent" by the speaker.

And, why would it be offensive for someone, in support of an assertion about the number of unbelievers in America, to assert that "The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million . . . That's more than all the Jews in the world put together."

• The assertion is that "nonreligious people" in the US number more than 25 million, but less than 30 million.
• This is approximately 10% of the current population. (I added that - it was more important to Dawkins to make the JEW comparison as opposed to this more informative general comparison).
• To show a qualitative difference, the statement is made, "That's more than all the Jews in the world put together."

A non-Jewish person who had no interest whatsoever in the Jewish Diaspora (I use this in respect to other peoples who have also experienced Diaspora) and who possibly might feel comfortable with, or even interested in denying the Holocaust might not understand that to use JEWS as the comparison figure in any "religious growth" discussion today would be in at best, poor taste, exhibiting poor and insensitive judgement since Jewish population declined by 6 million between 1939 and 1945, from 17 million to 11 million.  Today, the worldwide Jewish population is estimated at 13.3 million, with "zero" population growth observed in recent years. 

Or, to put it another way, how would it sound if somebody crowed, "There are millions and millions of Atheists!  Far more than those Jews!"  Yes - and the Jews had a little help in reducing their numbers, didn't they?  It wasn't as though there are fewer Jews today because they were being "recruited to the ranks of Atheism."  More like - walked to the gas chamber, heads shaved, gold fillings removed, bodies cremated.  Oh, wait - can't bring up that snap snap old Holocaust.  What a TIRED subject.  There are more nonbelievers in America than JEWS in the WORLD TODAY!  Whee!  I'm so BRIGHT.

• Do you have a naturalistic world view?
• Are you happy there are now more of you in the US than there are JEWS?  (this is debatable - "nonbelievers" means exactly that - I'd never heard the term "Bright" before today).
• Are you too unaware to come up with some other growth comparison like "50% more today than ten years ago" which might actually interest or convince somebody - except JEWS?
• Can you write "this well?" -->
• "Persons are not excluded from the Brights by politics or other characteristics."
• "Our nations, cultures, politics, genders, occupations, interests, and so on differ widely."

GENDERS: There are TWO. 

SO ON: An infinite variety, I'd think.

CULTURES: Hmn.  What "cultures" would these be?  First Nations?  European?  Na Dene?  Yaqui?  New Jersey?

How about this - it's the original manifesto from the NY Times:  "The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet." Uh.  I'll let my GLBT friends comment on that comparison.  So happy!  So happy persons to be FREE!   

The Original Flavor Brights say in answer to the criticism that the term sounds a little arrogant, and perhaps a bit like bragging that it'll work over time:  "Nevertheless, with enough repetition and mimicry, we suspect that people will discriminate Bright correctly, just as people today discriminate Gay correctly."  I should really just cut and paste and link, shouldn't I?  I can't really say things this well - to express the true nature of what's going on here.

It's so reminiscent of . . . what's that phrase? . . . oh, yeah, "Fans are Slans."

According to Wired writer Gary Wolf, "The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it's evil."

Wolf writes, "Dawkins has been talking this way for years, and his best comebacks are decades old."

According to CNN.com, none of this is an accident,

In an interview published in this month's Wired magazine, Dawkins estimated the number of non-religious people in the U.S. to be around 30 million and compared atheists' struggle for recognition as equivalent to previous campaigns by other minority groups.

NOT LIKE JEWS THOUGH, RIGHT?  ALL SLAVERY OPPRESSION WAS RELIGIOUS TOO - right?  THERE ARE MORE SLANS Brights I DON'T GIVE A RATSASSES NOW THAN EVER proof positive THAT RELIGION IS DEAD DEAD DEAD AND ONLY TOTAL MORONS BELIEVE IN JESUS.

"I think we're in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago," said Dawkins. "There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people who had the courage to come out. I think that's the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes."

STRAIGHT WHITE PRIVILEGED MALES -- COME OUT!  COME OUT IN ALL YOUR VARIED AND DIVERSE GENDERS AND CULTURES!  NOW!  OH - THERE'S ONLY ONE CULTURE AND GENDER?  WELL - JEWS KILLED JESUS!  DIDN'T YOU KNOW JESUS CAME WITH A SWORD?  WAKE UP DUMMY AND REALIZE YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE IN GOD BECAUSE THERE ARE

MISTAKES DUMB PHRASES CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE.

CHRISTYUNS KILT UH MADE FUN OF PUT GALILEYO UNDER HOUSE ARREST TOO AND DIDN'T APOLOGIZE FOR IT UNTIL 1984.

*but i am a buddhist baha'i hindu zoroastrian scientologist quaker who meditates*

DON'T YOU KNOW JEWS KILLED JESUS WHO NEVER EXISTED ANYWAY RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL IN THE WORLD AGREE WITH ME AGREE WITH ME AGREE WITH ME YOU ARE STUPID IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME RELIGION IS THE SOURCE OF ALL EVIL IN THE WORLD ALL PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN JESUS ARE STUPID

LISTEN TO ME I AM THE VOICE OF REASON I AM THE VOICE OF REASON I AM THE VOICE OF REASON I AM THE VOICE OF REASON

Surveys show that "Atheists are America's least trusted people, and critics accuse them of being fundamentalists in their own right."

I just noticed this situation - and why am I not surprised?

Just like sci-fi, babay.  But their "New Atheist" books seem to be selling better.  At 58,000 hardcovers sold for one of the recent New Atheist "bestsellers," this is being trumpeted as an amazing success in a few articles here and there (The Nation, etc.)  This is fewer copies than there are hardcover Bibles sold in a day.  It's okay for a present-day nonfiction title - nothing more, nothing less.  It ought to be a good advance for its author. 

listen to me there are now more nonbelievers in the u.s. than jews worldwide.  aren't you glad?  we're growing like weeds right out of the closet!  we are the reasonable ones the brights don't you trust us?

SURVEYS SAY:  No.

Because why?  Well, a reasonable person might say that people who say and do this type of thing (for example, 3% of the U.S. population equals about 9.1 million - not as Mr. Dawkins says, between 25 and 30 million, more than ALL THE JEWS IN THE WORLD!) might not be very trustworthy.  People who might say "I am reasonable I am so reasonable" who make this type of fundamental and even frightening, and insulting error - aren't too trustworthy. 

But no.  97% of the American population is stupid.  3% are "bright."  Statistically - it's provable.  Isn't it?

And thanks, Christopher Hitchens, for pointing up that  

"In the very recent past, we have seen the Church of Rome befouled by its complicity with the unpardonable sin of child rape, or, as it might be phrased in Latin form, "no child's behind left."

Yes, I realized that in addition to the vast number of other absent topics on the "American Atheist" website, there's no mention of what would be considered a powerful argument, at least against the Catholic Church.

So thanks to the always outspoken, incisive and gifted Christopher Hitchens for expressing his doubts like an intelligent human being.  His book, I shall buy.

Instead of a "Bright."

The New Atheism, Same as the Old . . .

I watched one part of a television show called "The Root of All Evil" last week (in the show's parlance -- religion -- and since it's a show covering the history of Western Atheism -- it's primarily anti-Christian). I was curious and open to hear what it had to say.  I did watch, and I did listen.  I came away wondering why the term "Reason" was used so frequently in the show and by its sponsors.  And I came to understand that Atheists now are not just irritating, hypocritical, self-righteous prigs -- they've become irritating, hypocritical, self-righteous prigs these television Atheists who are calling themselves "The New Atheists" are working themselves into a lather over world domination.

This is a photo of Richard Dawkins, the hero of the current Atheist movement and the narrator of "The Root of All Evil." 

According to an interview that Dawkins gave to Wired Magazine last November, "The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million . . . That's more than all the Jews in the world put together."

So if I used the type of logic Dawkins employs (alogic), I'd then say, that casual phrase tossed off at the beginning of an interview about Dawkins' belief system reminds me of the fact that Hitler was an agnostic seeking to establish his own state religion for political purposes, possibly with the hope of a renaissance of Roman emperor-worship (that link goes to one of the hundreds of Atheist articles insisting that Hitler was NOT an Atheist as well they MUST do -- this author provides as supporting evidence the facts that Hitler was baptized Roman Catholic and was confirmed -- the author is unaware of what confirmation is or at which age it takes place, so in the author's mind, Adolf was a permanent Catholic "Soldier of God").  Yeah.  We all know Hitler confessed regularly (not) and went to Mass constantly (not) and was so good to the Catholics in Germany.  Perhaps this is not unintentional on Dawkins' part.  Certainly there is a long tradition of Anti-Semitism in Dawkins' part of society.  I'm well aware that Atheists are fundamentally anti-Christian, paying little attention to other faiths (Dawkins' mention of Islamic fundamentalism at the end of the show I watched would have been funny, if it weren't so pathetically condescending to a genuine danger to the world).  Dawkins is fond of using the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a plausible alternative to God.

To make some logical analogies similar to the Atheist attacks on Christianity (and to a lesser extent, other faiths such as Judaism, Islam and the in-the-atheists'-minds vague cluster of Eastern religions), Dawkins' essential argument is that religion is the cause of all of the wickedness in the world. 

Like The Golden Horde, the Bataan Death March and Hernan Cortez' destruction of Mexico?  How about the Khmer Rouge and Stalin's Gulag?

The better parts of rhetoric are unnecessary to Dawkins.  For example, he asserts, "Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists."

That's why I'm writing this post.  I am a Christian.  I am not stupid.

The Wired article notes, "When it comes to concrete examples of exactly what we should believe, reason is a slippery slope, and at the bottom – well, at the bottom is atheism."

Anyone who is familiar with Rhetoric will understand that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy. 

The New Atheists are actively anti-religious.  While they maintain their traditional hatred of Christianity and fondly cling to their favorite whipping post, the inconsistencies in The Bible and traditional examples of "the evil that Christianity religion does," they are actively out there to save the world, even as they admit the impossibility of their task, their extreme minority status in society, and the general futility of the effort.

According to Wired, "Didn't they try a cult of reason once, in France, at the close of the 18th century, and didn't it turn out to be too ugly even for Robespierre?"

Why yes!  Yes, they did.  And look where it got Mr. Incorruptible.  They say one sees and has sensory input for a few minutes after one's head is cut off.

I call the active New Atheists hypocrites because of their overuse of term "reason" when they are so poor at anything approaching genuine logic or rhetoric.  The evils that Atheists object to are all actions taken by individuals in service of their own wishes for personal gain, for the most part.  Even religious fanatics like Savonarola can easily be seen as self-interested and politically motivated. 

Which kills people -- guns or people or . . . religion?  Rhetorically, it must be people, for the gun fires itself only under very unusual circumstances (when dropped, etc.).  It is the same for religion, or Atheism.  Nothing about religious belief would suggest to intelligent people that they were not responsible for their own actions and decisions.  As with anything else, it is an individual choice.  And the New Atheists would like to take that choice away from people.

Has a familiar ring.  Like The Spanish Inquistion.