A 7th-grade student is suspended from school because she said “I love you” to another student in her native language, Menominee.  She attends Sacred Heart Catholic Academy in Shawano, Wisconsin, where the student body is over 60 percent American Indian, and the school is about six miles from the Menominee Indian Tribe Reservation.

The girl was benched from playing with her basketball team, allegedly for a “bad attitude”.

She was teaching the phrase to another student.  This pissed off the teacher…

Miranda and a fellow classmate were talking to each other when Miranda told her how to say “Hello” and “I love you” in Menominee.

“The teacher went back to where the two were sitting and literally slammed her hand down on the desk and said, “How do I know you are not saying something bad?”

Ummm… Hello..??   You teach in a school with a 60% American Indian population in an area close to the Reservation.  Learn the language, you ignorant TEACHER!   You don’t have to become fluent, but it doesn’t take much to learn basic common phrases… like, oh, I don’t know… how about “I love you”???   That’s a pretty basic phrase in any language.

Stupid teacher.

I spent a lot of time in the last year commenting and generally rousing rabble on other forums.   Better for me to link articles and put my opinions here.

So, if you are on an RSS feed or other subscriber service, be watching for the announcement to re-set your subscriptions to point to the main page at raywhiting.com instead of here.

The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.

Well…   why do you Christians keep sending missionaries to places all around the world where you aren’t wanted, and where you often deliberately lie about your reasons in order to gain access?

Atheists visit Christian websites because such places are often filled with deliberate misinformation and even some accidental ignorance.  We provide alternative viewpoints, scientific data, rational reasoning for our positions, and the opportunity for others to expand their thinking a bit.  Even if the dialogue participants never change their minds, other readers are able to read the dialog and sift through the material offered.  And, as an added bonus, they can also see the reasoned and calm demeanor of non-believers compared with the hysterical rantings of their fellow Christians.

things are settling down somewhat, and I will be changing the blog…. might even delete the current version entirely and start all over clean.   I get several HUNDRED spam commentings here each day, even when I don’t post anything, so I might as well re-focus and get a clean start here…..

right?

Orientation (sexual or otherwise) is another way of saying that someone is inclined to certain behaviors. The Bible defines certain behaviors as sinful, same-gender sex is one of them.

However, “being gay” is not sinful, but giving in to the urge of having sex with a person of the same gender is sinful. We all have sins that we’re inclined to, have an orientation, as it were. But if I were to have an inclination to cheat on my wife, the Bible tells me to resist those feelings. If someone has a similar inclination to engage in sex with the same gender, they are also commanded by God to resist those feelings. This is called temptation and Jesus was tempted but that isn’t sin.

Let me also be clear that same sex marriage would also be sinful. I understand that this is difficult for many gay people to accept. If I could not express myself In any way my heterosexual desires, that would be a difficult life to live. If I could never express my feelings for a woman that I was attracted to, it would be painful to me.

Yet God always offers a way out for us. He has promised us that. And just because a verse in the Bible is difficult doesn’t negate our responsibility to be obedient to it. God also promises His blessings to those who are obedient.

There is a HUGE difference between sexual orientation and a propensity toward various “behaviors”.  Sexual orientation is NOT a behavior.  It is part of one’s very being, who they are attracted to for companionship, romance, and all the rest of what intimate relationships are made of.

Even in his example, talking about an “inclination” to cheat on his wife — his sexual orientation remains heterosexual.  Whether gay or straight, the ability to remain faithful or the tendency to wander, that has to do with conduct and behaviors and this IS a matter of choice and character.   But the attraction to one or another gender remains fairly constant.  It is an innate trait within a person.

Promoting fidelity and responsible sexual behaviors is a good thing, in my opinion. Expecting a gay person to never express his sexuality is unreasonably cruel.   Until Christians get a solid grasp of what science has covered in the realm of human sexuality, they will continue to suffer this unfortunate disconnect between religion and reality.

Much of the article addresses the fears of chaplains not being allowed to speak their opinion.  All fear, no substance.  Chaplains can continue to preach their doctrines in the pulpit.   In a counseling situation, if a gay soldier comes for counseling on something, if his issue is not about a boyfriend/lover, the chaplain doesn’t need to go off on a tirade about “the sin of homosexuality’.  Just knowing that a soldier is gay is NOT an excuse to preach about it, unless the soldier comes in for that issue.

But further down in the article we find this:

Even though chaplains are free to exercise their religious beliefs in the pulpit, there are no guidelines for the trenches. And there are also no guidelines for soldiers who may be uncomfortable sharing close living and sleeping quarters with a gay or lesbian soldier. Crews asks “If a private first class is a assigned a homosexual bunk mate, will he be able to share his personal story about what his view on what sin is?”

Unless the gay or lesbian starts making advances on the straight bunkmate, why would he or she feel the need to spout off on  their version of “sin”?    If a guy comes in and talks about his date or whatever, the straight one can say “I really don’t want to hear about it.”   Beyond that, it doesn’t matter if the straight person is uncomfortable or not with the simple fact that a bunkmate is gay or lesbian.   They have to deal with it, just the same as if a bunkmate is a drinker, smoker, or whatever.     Straight bunkmates can freely talk about going out on a date, seeing a movie or whatever, so it is appropriate for a gay or lesbian soldier to talk about going on a date.   There’s no need to be explicitly detailed or sexual about it (gay or straight), but there is nothing wrong with being as open as any other person about their personal lives.   If the religious person has no problem with another person going on a straight date, he cannot logically have a problem with a gay or lesbian person going on a date.  It makes no sense to get upset just hearing that we exist and have personal lives that are just as valid as any straight person.

And, of course, these chaplains are worried about their straight soldiers being uncomfortable about having gay or lesbian bunkmates.   But what about the gay or lesbian soldier being made uncomfortable with someone else preaching at them about things that aren’t anyone’s business?   Why should gay and lesbian people be made to feel like we have to make everyone comfortable with our existence?

There are LOTS of gay and lesbian people in the media:  news media, TV/movies, music, sports, etc.  And there are gobs and gobs of people who do not subscribe to the majority religious position, and in fact, many well known names are atheist.

A few times in the last year or so I have heard/read comments that “so and so needs to come out of the closet” — to publicly declare their sexual orientation and/or religious position.

In a very real way, if all the queer and/or atheist people in the public eye were to come out, it would absolutely make a difference in our society.  And, I believe that in many cases it would do a world of good for people to realize some of their idols are gay/lesbian or don’t believe in god.

But I have come to accept that just because someone is in the public eye, they do NOT owe it to the rest of us  to leverage their celebrity to advance a “cause” in a way that would politicize sexuality or religion.   Many celebrities leverage their celebrity for charitable causes, helping people in real need.    Would the beneficiaries of their largesse be harmed by putting their private lives on public display?   Would their careers (and resulting celebrity) be cut short by coming out?

I believe everyone needs to be honest with who they are in their personal lives, but I don’t believe anybody automatically owes us the leveraging of their celebrity to advance our own public acceptance.   People will be bigots no matter who comes out.

I would LOVE  to hear about all the queer or atheist celebrities, but it is not my “right” to know the details of their private lives.  I don’t care about who is sleeping with whom, and I don’t normally follow celebrity news fluff anyway.

I am quite open and honest:  I am an openly gay man who no longer believes a god exists.  I do not need some “famous person” to come out before I can take my own place in society.  I think if everyone would come out, it would be a far less weighty problem, and we would not have to depend on celebrities to make it okay for us to be ourselves.

Dean G. Stroud: Faith colors the world for those who believe

which is Dean Stroud’s analysis or review of Alasdair MacIntyre’s book, which apparently didn’t have a catchy-enough title for Stroud to mention it.    Whatever.  

For atheists, then, intelligent conversation with believers is
possible — up to a point. But faith in God is the proverbial straw
on the camel’s back. Here the theist goes one step too far

and steps out of reality into fantasy. For the atheist, this is
akin to thinking someone

intelligent until you learn that the person believes in the
Easter bunny.

MacIntyre explains that theists view the disagreement
differently. It is not about one additional thing along with other
things, but it is “a disagreement about everything, about what it
is to find anything whatsoever intelligible rather than
unintelligible.”

An example may be taken from the early days of television. When
I was growing up, we had to turn on the color or else watch the
show in black and white. Once we turned the right knob, everything
on the screen was flooded with color. Instantly the world changed
from colorless to one with reds, blues and greens. Faith is like
turning the color on. It is not one more thing more among the many
— it colors everything.

How does one go from seeing faith as one (unnecessary) addition
to the inventory of facts to experiencing a faith-filled world?
Such change seldom comes from rational arguments, although
apologetics can help.

A couple of things struck me.  First, the implication that atheism creates a world in shades of gray, while faith in an invisible, impossible being suddenly turns on a world of brilliant and amazing color.

As one man said who turned from atheism to Catholicism, “I
started meeting people who were not just ‘good’, they were holy. A
sort of transcendence that was striking to me marked their lives
and personalities. I could see their prayerful closeness to God in
the way they did everything.”

We have to ask what kind of atheist is being referred to here.  That is, because atheism is the default position for most of us, until indoctrinated one way or another, the native-born atheist simply has no thought whatsoever toward the supernatural or to this or that deity.   And then there is the conscious atheist who actually has thought it through and come to the rational conclusion that there is no god to believe in.  

As I see it, the native-born atheist, without a thought one way or another, may very well be presented with a religious concept and may find some sort of fulfillment and added meaning and depth to his or her life. And this may come from organized religion, generic “spirituality”, or some other perspective.  But I find it difficult (though not impossible) to imagine that someone who has actually thought it through and realized there is no god to be swayed by a some apologetic into believing otherwise.   The article admits such changes seldom come from rational arguments. 

I, too, remember the early days of color television.  It didn’t always work right.  You might get green skies and blue grass and orange people.  At one point they even had cling-on filters to lay over the screen to simulate color. One of the biggest comlaints of the early days of color television was that the colors were not true to reality.   My mother often said she would not buy a color television until the colors were true. 

The article puts up a false dichotomy:  atheism is shades of gray; theism/faith turns on full color.  

But there is no guarantee that the world colored by faith is accurate and true to reality. 

The author goes on to illustrate this “color” by holding up examples of people who were thought to be “holy”, as if recognizing the supposed goodness in others as a measure of faith is part of this “coloring the world”.    But, sadly, he holds up Mother Teresa, who is known to have been neither holy nor particularly good in the final analysis.  She hurt thousands upon thousands of people with her regimented, cold, calculating application of religion, forcing those in her care to suffer needlessly when she had access to food and medicine to actually help them.  To her, suffering was a good thing, and she apparently had no problem making sure others suffered as much as possible. 

And I recognize there is a time for “making do with what’s available”, and life can be harsh and cold.  But what Mother Teresa did was unconscionably cruel — while begging for money and raking in millions of dollars, it was withheld from those for whom it was intended to help.  I have no idea if she ever gave a full accounting of where all the money, drugs, food, and other resources actually went.  Viewing her as “good” or “holy” requires viewing her through a faulty cling-on filter that does not offer accurate color of reality.

I have a problem with the notion that irrational faith and theism are the ways to “color” the world, or to recognize and appreciate the goodness of others.  There truly are many genuinely good people in the world; in fact, I believe most people pretty much want to be good to themselves and to others, and there are also some exceptionally good people.    We do not need to believe in a god in order to open our eyes and have our world filled with the brilliant colors of human endeavor and charity.  

Many times, both in my own life and in the lives of other non-theists, people have said, “You are such a good Christian.”  This is an example of inaccurate color.   People are not good because they are Christian (or Jew or Buddhist or whatever).  People are good because they are good, and we need to be able to separate the fact that they are good from the fantasy that there is some deity involved in the process. 

My world is filled with the brilliant colors and nuances of humanity — just pure plain humans being human.  I don’t have to slap on a cling-on filter and pretend some supernatural force is behind their goodness.  Without filters, without special tuning knobs, without superstition, my world is far from shades of gray. 

What say you?