Do Likewise: Why We All Need to Do Our Part

I'll keep this one short as the pictures tell the story.

Back in 2002, the publicly held company for whom I was working acquired a competitor.  Their former Denver headquarters became our new Colorado facility after the takeover.  I was in town for business and stumbled upon a rather disturbing sight.  I had my camera with me and took the first two pictures.  Five minutes later I was on the phone with one of our Human Resources representatives.  Two days later I took the third photo -- which should reveal the nature of my little chat with HR.

    
Click each photo to see the full-size detail in PDF format.

Never let this kind of crap go unchecked.  Ever.  Make them keep their god crap to themselves or within the confines of a religious setting (house of worship or religious organization) -- and not a business unless it's privately owned.

Bridge For Sale: You Believe What?

I've received many letters over the years from Christians who took great offense to statements I've made about Christians being so gullible that they believe what they're told. I should ignore such knee-jerk reactions because they're founded in the deep insecurity of looking foolish in their beliefs.  (It's amazing how people who claim to be so faithful, with god on their side no less,  get so panicky when some dumb schmuck with a website pokes them in the ribs.)  But since those comments continue to draw so much hate mail I might as well address it.

Again, for the record, Christians are inherently weak, gullible, easily fooled, and they believe what they're told.  I said it before, I say it again now, and I stand by it.

One of my great joys in life is watching the delicate "faith vs. intellect" dance invoked when bastards like myself force Christians to defend both.  You see, they can't.  (Many will try, but more about those faithless rationalizers later.)

The patent silliness of religious dogma itself causes faith and intellect to be in conflict on almost any point.  Take your pick.  There are hundreds to choose from: virgin births, talking snakes, walking on water, parting the seas, raising the dead.  You'd have to be a lunatic to believe such nonsense all on faith, right?  Well, the truly faithful will and the deeply insecure can't.

Check it out for yourself.  Call any Christian gullible and delusional to their face and watch their faith quickly melt away as they attempt to defend their intellect.  Oh, they can clamor on all they want about their place in eternity, and I sincerely hope it helps them sleep well at night.  But while they're waiting to join Jesus in heaven they can't afford to be labeled as such.  Too much in life is riding on their perceived intelligence.  But enjoy the entertainment as they jump from one foot to the other in a sad, desperate attempt to honor their god and maintain some semblance of sanity.

Imagine someone with the arrogance to tout an in-your-face bumper sticker that reads, "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!" and then have the temerity to take exception to me saying that they believe what they're told!  It's like me shaving my head and then getting upset when someone calls me baldy.  Just a little consistency, folks.  That's all I ask.

But I suppose I understand their reaction to the likes of me.  The Christian fundamentalist mind functions at very primitive level, and detecting certain nuances of figurative speech is often beyond their abilities.  So they take knee-jerk offense to my charge without regard to colloquialisms or scope.  They accuse me of being so unfair to assume their all-encompassing stupidity because we don't agree on matters of faith.  This couldn't be further from the truth.  (Click here to see where I said so.)  Of course, even if I did mean to imply such a thing would it be nearly as offensive as telling someone they're destined to an eternity in hell?

Some people need to be spoon-fed when it comes to the subtle nuances of the written word, so I'll point it out for those who just don't get it.  When I say that Christians believe what they're told, I'm not using the word "told" as a literal absolute (meaning verbally informed).  And surely you're smart enough to spot that the scope of my statement does not extend to every piece of information known to man.  How can anyone with at least a third grade reading comprehension know this?  Okay, pay close attention kids...[clearing throat]...

THIS IS AN
ATHEISM WEBSITE.

Was that not clear to you?  Aside from scattered personal commentary about my life, the scope of my little online endeavor is limited to the LUNACY OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS and those who adhere to any flavor of it.  That's all.  Clear now?

Would your average Christian believe that the moon was made of green cheese just because someone told them so or because they read it somewhere?  Of course not, and I neither said nor implied that they would.  The moon's composition is a purely secular topic.  And furthermore, with regard to my use of the word told, I was clearly referring to the acquisition of information and not the manner in which it was conveyed.  Bible lore is ultimately tied to the written word.  You were told, you read, it came to you in a dream, whatever.  It's all the same.  No one need "tell" a Christian anything that he or she will ultimately believe on their own accord.  How they receive the information is wholly irrelevant.  The compelling factor is that they believe it.

An evangelical Christian does believe what they are told (i.e. what is conveyed to them regardless of manner).  The bible "tells" Christians many things, literally THOUSANDS of things, which Christians believe BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS THEM SO.

Go ahead and start back-peddling if you must, but Christians have well-established the precedent.  Remember that children's song...

"Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so..." 

How easy it is to indoctrinate [read: brainwash] an entire generation if you get to them young enough, eh?  And again, I'll remind you of that arrogant little bumpersticker...

"The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!"

This is my challenge: Prove me wrong by telling me JUST ONE THING that the old or new Testament tells you that you don't believe.  If you can't, then my statement stands.

Checkmate.

There's no gray here.  For Christians, it's a thoroughly black and white thing.  You claim that the bible is the inerrant word of god.  As such it conveys material facts that you must either accept or reject in totality.

And if you have the audacity to argue that you once questioned and rejected EVERYTHING the bible claims, and that you researched each and every one of those things scientifically, logically, and emotionally only then to come to the conclusion that they were true in the end, then I'm afraid I'll just have to label you a liar.  And a bad one at that.  You'd have to claim yourself a schooled expert in all branches of physical and human sciences, mathematics, and religion.  And I'd have to disregard the amazing coincidence that you just happened to be right about every single one of those things that you once skeptically scrutinized and rejected.  How incredibly convenient!

Let's take it from the top...

 Christians believe what the bible tells them because the book itself claims to be...

• its own source of validation
  
• its sole source of validation (societal self-fulfilling prophecies and apologist delusions discounted)
  
• the ultimate and final authority on all matters

...and that's good enough for them.  My assertion stands unshaken.  Q.E.D.

And to be fair, there's nothing wrong with taking religious claims on faith.  I, myself, take many things on faith -- and I'm comfortable not having any concrete proof to support them.  The only difference between me and every single Christian apologist on the planet is that I make no excuses and provide no explanations to justify or validate what I choose to believe.  They love to argue that they do so to save souls, and that's pure bullshit.  Their motive is driven by their need to protect their intellect and not seem so gullible and unintelligent to those who reject their doctrine.  (If you haven't already done so, read all about their mindless rationalizations to support their motive here.)

Silence is Golden: Keep Your Prayers to Yourself

Christians want prayer in public schools, but not for themselves.  It's a deliberate in-your-face initiative to shove their god crap down the throats of those who haven't accepted Christ.  Period.  How do we know this?  Because prayer for the sake of prayer provides ZERO advantage in school over anywhere else.  However, there are several reasons why praying elsewhere does provide an advantage.

Students need to pray with other students in homeroom before first period?

B U L L S H I T !

How about praying WITH YOUR OWN FAMILY in the morning before everyone leaves for the day?  Advantage: "The family that prays together stays together" is your manta.  Now you have an opportunity to live by it.  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  Don't even think about offering your mindless excuses.  There are none.  Morning prayer takes 60 seconds, maybe less.  (They know what you look like when you roll out of bed anyway.)

How about stopping by your church on the way to school?  Advantage: It's a fucking church.  Must I really explain this one to you?  Not enough time, you say?  Um, this is your god we're talking about.  If you're so concerned about salvation and your place in eternity, then how about setting your god damn alarm clock 30 minutes earlier, you whiny bastard.

How about praying at the bus stop while waiting for a pickup.  Or on the bus perhaps.  Seems like there would be plenty of other students there with which to share your common beliefs.  Advantage: There's nothing better to do.  Waiting for the bus is like watching flies fuck.  At the very least it will provide a distraction during inclement weather.

How about praying outside in front of the school?  I mean, that's where you're all going anyway, so you're guaranteed to find the numbers you need so badly.  Advantage: Unified crowd control.  Students are supposed to behave inside the building, and there are authority figures within it to monitor and control the crowd.  Outside the building it's like Lord of the Flies.  A unified prayer session will help the mob control itself.  They'd be up to no good anyway until the very last second when the bell commands them in.

But no.  You see, that won't do because outside won't hold a captive audience.  Too many distractions and external stimuli.  This is why Christians want so desperately to get those prayer sessions inside the school.

Getting prayer in the classroom serves but one purpose, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with satisfying a child's need for prayer.

But if these bible-punchers actually took the time to listen to what the book really says they'd know that even Jesus was against prayer in school (or any public venue):

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. (Matthew 6:5) But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:6)

Relax, panicky Christians.  I know that Jesus in this instance was speaking figuratively.  I give no more credence to the possibility that he wanted people to actually walk into a closet and pray than I give to the literal divinity of feces when someone says "holy shit."  I'm neither ignorant nor disingenuous about this point and can grasp the often gray nature of figurative speech and the esoteric interpretation of bible lore.

But, yes, Matthew's recount (for those who believe that Jesus actually uttered those words) is crystal clear in its implication that prayer is supposed to be a perfectly and completely private matter and not to be put on display.  Closets?  Who the hell cares about closets?  It's about praying within the privacy of some venue where it is not forced on those who don't follow your religion, or within the privacy of your own house of worship where it is shared with those who do.

And take note that there are no footnote exceptions to the words of St. Matthew.  They are absolute.  He never said that people should make a public display of their prayer only when A=B, else it should be done in secret.  So, by definition, this would have to include organized and orchestrated prayer in schools, just to name one of many inappropriate displays of faith.

I find it so funny how god and Jesus become poets (speaking figuratively, metaphorically, and allegorically) when Christian hypocrites don't like what their words imply if taken literally, which is ironic because the bible is supposed to me the literal word of god.  (Christians will simply not allow their god's word to forbid or even impede them from cramming their grand fantasy bunk down our throats.)  But the big guy and his alleged son suddenly become so un-poetic when Christians need "the word" to be literal, definitive, and absolute for things like murder, abortion, homosexuality, etc., or anything else that seeks to control people or make them fearful.  How convenient.

People go to the supermarket to buy food and various other sundries.  They go to the gas station to fuel their cars.  They go to the doctor to get medical treatment and advice.  They go to the auto mechanic to get their cars fixed.  They go to school to learn chemistry, trigonometry, and English literature.  And they go to church or temple to pray.  Praying in school is like going to the auto mechanic to get medical advice.  Sure, you could do it, but it's not logically coherent.  You could go to the hair salon and sit in the waiting area just to prepare your yearly tax return.  It's neither wrong nor bad nor immoral, but it doesn't make any sense either.  And I'd wager 10-to-1 you would never do it unless you were a kook.  The same logic applies to prayer in public venues.

See the Christian argument for prayer in public schools exactly for what it is.  It's a poor and misguided excuse for Christians to intentionally shove their beliefs in everyone's face.  And if you're to argue that you're required, as a Christian, to spread the word, make disciples of all nations, or whatever else you want to call it, know that you can be a dutiful Christian and do likewise without public prayer.  In the exact same manner, you can sell diapers to the public without shitting your pants in the store that sells them just to show everyone how they work.

Now be an obedient Christian, get in your closet, and pray for some intellectual honesty.

Sin: Letting Jesus Pick Up the Tab

Listen up all you total-absolution zero-accountability Christian cop-out blame-passers.  Pay close attention.  Take copious notes if you must: Your sins are your own.

Christ (if he ever did exist) didn't die for them.  Take responsibility for your inadequacies, faults, and screw ups.

Co-dependent and deluded is no way to go through life.  Pay your own fines, you cheap irresponsible bastards.

That's all I have to say on the matter.  I'm done with you.

Class dismissed.

Intellectual Honesty Test: A Challenge to Christians

This rant ate up a little too much space on the page, so I converted it to an Adobe PDF document.  Download a copy and send to that very special Christian in your life.  If you derive any pleasure from pissing them off or making them foam at the mouth, send me $1,293.07 (cash only, please) as a token of your appreciation.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Ever since I posted the story called Have a Heart (on the Hypocrisy page), I've received many letters from people who objected to my written assault on a virtual stranger who laid his hands upon me to pray and heal me from a recurrence of cancer.  (If you haven't read the story yet, you might want to do so before continuing.)

I try to respond to as many emails as I can, and I must have formulated the same response to those who have commented on this story at least three dozen times.  So since it draws so much criticism from those who read it, I figured I might as well make it official and post my retort here in perpetuity.

The common thread among those who speak critically of "Have a Heart" is the argument that Tim's actions were harmless, that I should have just let it slide, and that I shouldn't have let it "get" to me.  And as I was critical about his deluded belief that Jesus would heal me, nearly all asked why I cared about what he thought would happen as a result of his prayers.

I'll address each of these in just a minute, but before I do, let me point out that the story was about Tim's hypocritical logic and subsequent actions when a stunning case of irony turned the tables.  Any offense I took was completely incidental, purely anecdotal, and wholly irrelevant.  But to address the comments frequently received...

First, Tim's actions were indeed harmless, but only in my situation.  I'm an atheist, so nothing he said or did influenced me one way or another, but that might not have been the case if I was a person of deep faith.  (I'll get back to this in just a bit.)

Second, I did let it slide (as a favor to a friend) -- which is clearly stated in the story and patently obvious to anyone who actually took the time to read it instead of just reacting to it.

Third, saying that I let an offensive act "get" to me implies that society should allow offensive acts to go unchecked.  I dismiss all who make this claim as weak and as enablers of those who offend if they believe that claim, and (more likely) as hypocrites if the don't.  The rest is a matter of putting them to a test where the appropriate offensive stimulus is allowed to slap them upside the head.

Fourth, why do I care what Tim thought?  Well, the answer to that question is the very essence of this rant.  Read on.

The Dumbification of Society

We can probably agree that Tim's actions (in this one case) harmed no one, but that doesn't make it appropriate, reasonable, or smart.

Was it appropriate?  Absolutely not.  For one, he was little more than a stranger to me.  And, more importantly, he KNEW that I wasn't a Christian (he thought I was a Jew), yet he forced his act upon me without even asking if it would be okay.  That makes the act wholly inappropriate AND offensive -- even if it was harmless.

But you know what else would have been harmless?  He could have dropped his pants right there in the middle of that crowded room, squatted over a bucket, took a shit, held it to the sky as an offering to Zeus, and asked him to cure my cancer.  That too would have been completely harmless -- albeit quite repulsive.

Sheer stupidity, even if the act and words are benign or well-intentioned, should NOT be tolerated.  To do so is to enable and perpetuate the "dumbification of society."  I live in this world too, and as I am involved in mankind I am justified in being irked when stupid people do stupid things.  If their stupidity soils the sandbox in which I must play, then I will give them a moment of pause as I see fit.  You should thank me and do likewise.  After all, you're playing in the same sandbox too.

Imagine some guy who takes his own money and, for whatever inane reason, buys stock at its peak and intentionally dumps it all when it bottoms out.  And just for kicks, let's say he has no family to support and he's free of debt.  His actions are completely harmless, totally benign, absolutely legal, and he's done nothing immoral by any standard of conduct.  His actions are also profoundly stupid.  Anyone who considers himself part of mankind owes it to society to tap this moron on the shoulder and set him straight.  Period.  If nothing else, don't you think it might be nice to suggest he donate the money to a worthy charity instead of just pissing it away?  Granted this is an unlikely occurrence, but it illustrates my point perfectly.  An act may be harmless, but if it's pointless or stupid it shouldn't go unchecked.

But don't think this stance is one-sided.  Take it from a guy who's done plenty of stupid things in his life -- many of which were thoroughly harmless.  I wish someone had slapped ME upside the head and set me straight.

ATTENTION: FAITHLESS PANICKY CHRISTIANS This is the part where you're supposed to get clever and play right back at me.  Here, I'll help you out.  Just copy and paste the text below into an email and click Send: "Andy, we're giving YOU a moment of pause because your own stupidity is causing you to reject god and Jesus.  Don't be mad.  You should thank us, in fact.  We're just doing what you told us to do.  This is YOUR slap upside the head."

I could fairly argue that tossing another moronic act onto the growing heap of societal stupidity is harmful in a "big picture" kind of way, but I suppose some imbecile who wants to purposefully throw his money out the window (even at the expense of feeding a homeless person or sending a poor inner-city kid to college) isn't the worst thing imaginable.  So let's look at something that is, shall we?

Terminal Faith

Back in June of 1999, a friend and former co-worker of mine died from a relapse of breast cancer.  Donna and I met just over a year prior when she first came to work for the company.  Because of our common bond as cancer survivor, as well as our twisted sense of humor, we fast became friends.  She (a mom and grandmother) was quite a bit older than me, but we saw each other as contemporaries and enjoyed the company of one another.

Shortly before joining the company Donna recuperated from a long bout with her disease.  Medically speaking, she was put through the wringer: chemo, radiation, and a radical mastectomy.  Fortunately, the battle was a worthwhile endeavor.  Her cancer went in remission and she quickly returned to work and her normal routine.

A very common problem for cancer survivors is that many are so afraid of relapsing that they refuse to go for follow-up exams.  The exams themselves are quick and painless.  There's a physical exam, some blood work, and one or two non-invasive diagnostics (like an x-ray or CT scan) to monitor the body for recurrence.  But the fear of hearing bad news is too much for some to handle, so they shift into "out of sight, out of mind" mode.  You know, ignorance is bliss and "la-la-la, I can't hear you..."  This was the case with Donna.

Further complicating this setup for disaster, Donna was a woman of deep faith and believed that god was watching over her and that the prayers of friends would keep her health in good standing.

While I never met the "Tim" in her life, his (or her) actions were partly to blame for Donna's premature demise.  Yes, of course, Donna bore ultimate responsibility for her fate, but most people fighting a life-threatening illness are afraid, vulnerable, and desperately searching for a way to cope with the awful hand they were dealt -- and justifiably so.

I'm not making excuses for her, but someone fed Donna a divine pipedream, and it's hard for even the most devout people who aren't in distress to turn down a favor from god.  Avoidance is the worst possible coping method for those in this kind of predicament, and idiots like Tim serve up a heaping helping of avoidance to desperate, hungry souls.

Tim's "laying of hands" seem harmless now?  Um, I don't think so.  Was he well intentioned?  I'm sure he was, but that's wholly irrelevant.  And I couldn't care less.

There's no excuse for allowing stupidity to go unchecked.  Ever.

I constantly hammered at Donna to get her ass to the hospital, but she made up excuse after excuse -- each one peppered with her self-reinforced delusion that the prayers of friends (and the watchful eye and loving heart of god) would keep her alive and kicking.  I actually had to find her a local oncologist, set up an appointment, and threaten to drive all the way to Bakersfield (about 100 miles) to personally drag her (by force, if necessary) to the doctor before she actually agreed to go.  Eventually she did.

I'm sure there's no need for me to finish this story as you already know how it ended for poor Donna.  She was my friend and I cared for her deeply, but her stupid avoidant behavior probably contributed to her premature death.  I acknowledge that there were several factors that led to her demise, but know that someone just like Tim (and his "harmless" act) fueled an already unstable yet controllable fire.  His pointless prayers fell upon death ears.  Sadly, Donna was counting on them.

If more people gave others a moment of pause when they engaged in (even seemingly) foolish acts, the offenders might think twice before engaging in those acts again.  Anything else enables them to continue on and reinforces their negative behavior -- sometimes even with positive reward, although not in this one case.  In Donna's case it might very well have saved her life.  I blame the idiots who numbed her fear of relapsing with prayers of healing.  I suppose I blame Donna a bit, too.

No One Likes to Agree with the Bastard (Even When They Really Do)

Virtually all theists agree with much of what I say when I speak critically of beliefs.  They just hate to (and generally won't) admit it.  No problem.  I totally get that.  It's an intellect-saving thing.  But I often receive letters from atheists (and other skeptics) who openly agree with what I say, but they don't like the way I say it.  Um, boo-hoo.  The Bastard don't roll that way.  And often they try to diffuse their agreement with me with by playing the "Why don't you take moral high-ground?" card, or suggesting that I become a "kinder, gentler" bastard.

Here's a letter from a really sweet woman I met (we have a mutual friend) with whom I shared a fun debate (about the Tim incident) several months ago.  She and I occasionally interact on a social level and I think she's awesome.  But even friends can have a spirited exchange of emphatic opposition.  Below is the first of a few letters we swapped before we actually met in person.  Her letter is in black and my commentary is in [bold red].

Hi Andy, My name is [name withheld]. I'm a friend of [name withheld] and being a philosopher, she thought I would find interest in your website. First of all I must say I didn't read everything [understatement of the Millennium as you will see...] so I might have missed something that's relevant to my remarks, but for what I read I have some thoughts/comments and I know you don't mind them, so: I don't believe in god (or the god I was raised to believe in – the god of the sons of Israel), I guess you could call me agnostic. [If you don't believe in god then you, by definition, are an atheist. Agnostics question the existence of god.] I don't accept anything as an axiom, I keep asking a lot of questions to which I might never get answers, and it's ok, it's the journey that matters. So I'm not an advocate for god or anything BUT having read your words I think you mix a few things: Your stories about hypocrisy and all your "accusations" refer to people not God –- how people interpret god. Correct. [Good. You're paying attention.] I don't accuse god of anything because he doesn't exist. I also don't blame Bugs Bunny for anything for the exact same reason.  You don't believe that god exists because Tim was being a hypocrite? I wonder. [Huh?  That makes no sense. One has nothing to do with another. I don't believe in god because it's a patently silly concept. Tim's a hypocrite regardless of what I think or believe.] You specifically talk about Jesus and the Evangelical Christians. [Correct. I mentioned this on the very first page of this site. I also explained why I chose to focus on evangelicals. At least you're paying attention!] But the concept of god is way wider than this one person and his followers. [Really? I never knew that! I must have slept through all those years of Hebrew school.] As you well know, Jesus himself was Jewish. [Then why did his parents give him a Puerto Rican name?] He is supposedly the king Messiah, the son of god. Personally I see Jesus as a prophet, same as others throughout history, but only a specific group pf people see him as god. The Muslims and the Jews (and others) don't, and yet they believe in god. So who is this god and does he exist? I'm not saying he does, I'm not saying he doesn't. Some people feel safer in their faith that he exists and that's fine for them. I don't need him and his rules to lead my life. [Thanks for the lesson in theology and your personal take on matters of faith.] You wrote about your sensations towards Tim and how furious you were. Why? [Well, I never used the word furious, but okay. I get furious (or irked or whatever other word makes you feel better about your argument) when foolish people do or say foolish things that involve me against my will. When I overhear some scumbag refer to a black person as a nigger I get furious, too -- and I respond accordingly. Too bad you don't. (Or do you?) And in case you're inclined to tender a "Why can't you respond in a kinder, calmer tone and take the moral high-ground..." argument, it won't win any points with me. Subjectively harsh and offensive things sometimes demand and deserve an equally harsh and emphatic response. And I know I you'd prove my assertion by personal demonstration given the proper stimulus. We'd just have to find and push the all the right buttons. FYI, this woman is Israeli, and anyone who knows an Israeli isn't buying her "why are you getting so bent out of shape" criticality.] He believes in Jesus, you don't. Period. Why did you let yourself be involved and vulnerable to his actions? [That's very faulty logic. Let's swap ideologies and remove me and Tim from the example. Take a meat eater and a vegan. One eats flesh, one doesn't. Period. So what? It's a pointless thing to point out. If the meat eater shoves a burger in the face of someone they KNOW is a vegan and offers a bite, the offense to the vegan is extreme. Why don't you try it sometime and see how they respond? Tim's belief in Jesus (and my rejection of it) is completely incidental and, therefore, irrelevant. His act was offensive and repulsive to me. Forcing an offensive act upon another is worthy of an equally emphatic response. Let's see a racist lecture your child on the merits of ethnic cleansing (acceptable and benign to the racist, and offensive to you, I'm sure), and let's just see how benign your response is. Those who leave such offenses unchecked condone, enable, and guarantee perpetuation of them. I'd choose to give a harsh moment of pause. It's such a shame that you wouldn't do likewise. This is where you flip-flop and agree with me, or turn hypocrite and seek shelter behind the "that's not the same" mantra. Sorry, but it is the same.] One of my professors has an interesting thing to say about offense which I would like to adapt to your situation. [Okay, I have to cut you off right here. He's a teacher. Throwing around the term "professor" doesn't make him an authority.] It's not called "taking offense" for nothing. The offended person is an active participant in the act of offense. If someone says something to you that is supposedly offensive you have two choices: to take the offense and engage in this activity (of offending yourself), or to leave it untaken (by not being offended). [If your professor doesn't allow himself to "be offended" then he is a coward and an enabler. Physical pain tells your body to stop doing what it's doing. Likewise, "offense" tells your moral compass to do what's right (to you). The right thing would have been to give Tim a moment of pause and let him know that forcing an invocation of the spirit of Christ by the laying of hands upon a Jew is a profoundly offensive and inappropriate act, especially in light of the person having just received the news of a cancer relapse.] I am sure that Tim really cared about your health [no, you're not] and he did the only thing he knew (or thought he knew). [Irrelevant. My response would be the same whether he was or wasn't.] Yes he was ignorant and narrow-minded (See? Everyone does agree with me. They just don't like admitting it, so they issue all these disclaimers.] but why should you care and let him get to you when you know your truth? [First, I didn't "let" him do anything. Again, would you just walk your child away from the racist (after he spewed his venom upon your child's ear) without offense, basking in the reality that you knew your truth. Would you just let it go? Any response other than "no" will be taken as a thoroughly disingenuous answer. No, you wouldn't. And you'd be a very bad parent if you did. It would get to you as any other offensive thing would.] It is not my job to analyze your approach or your behavior [but you're doing so anyway] but I must say that I sensed anger and frustration in your words. [How perceptive you are!] You strike me as an intelligent person [No, I'm fucking brilliant...] and you surely have a lot to say but have you ever stopped to think what your motivations were? [I know exactly what my motivations are, and I spelled them out explicitly on the very first page of this site.] Being sarcastic is a virtue [It's also a talent...] but you have to examine where/what it stems from. [If you actually READ the site instead of just REACTING to it you'd know exactly what it stems from -- and you probably wouldn't have rambled on as you have for three pages now. But you didn't read the site; you merely reacted to what you expected to see. Instead you're allowing YOUR motivations to guide your words.  And if you really did read the site, then either your reading comprehension is very poor or you're hearing only what you want to hear. I'm aware of what you do for a living (from prior communications), so no doubt there's also some subconscious self-validation in play.] You can convey the same message when it's clear that it's just an angry kid yelling all the no's and do not's or as someone who really examined and processed his thoughts so now others can get it, even if they don't accept it. [Okay, so it's clear you really haven't read the site and just don't "get" it. You are forgiven.]

You know, maybe it would be nice [calliope music playing in the background] if we all lived in this perfect little world where we all got along and treated each other nicely and with blind civility and respect for ideas and perspectives and blah, blah, blah...but we don't.  Truth is, we live in a world of idiots -- many of which believe in, promote, enable, and perpetuate dangerous (as well as benign) acts and ideologies.

I don't think that stupidity should receive a hall pass just because no one gets hurt.  Even benign, well-intentioned stupidity hurts society in the long run.  But well-intentioned or not, stupidity should be dealt with accordingly.

The hypocrisy from people who agree with me fundamentally but don't care much for my delivery is staggering.  When posed with the scenario of a racist who starts preaching (non-violent) viewpoints to their children, all of a sudden the "why can't you just take the moral high-ground, ignore them, and walk away secure with your truth" fades into oblivion.

Copyright © 2004 The Godless Bastard. All Rights Reserved.