MORONS WITHOUT BORDERS

It’s not every day that I find myself shouting obscenities into the ether as I drive home from work. Not every day. Most of the time it’s because of some perturbing incident that occurred at work. Sometimes it’s because of a guest on a podcast I listened to who said something unconscionably stupid. Rarely is it because of something so mundane as a statistical political podcast. Rarely… 

The offending podcast is the 538 Politics Podcast. Ordinarily I find the program to be informative and refreshingly neutral on controversial topics. Occasionally they say something critical of twice-impeached shitbag Donald Trump. But can you blame them? The episode which seems to have glued itself to my craw was about the decline of religion in America and how that is affecting politics. I often listen to atheist podcasts which discuss similar topics, but since 538 is a political podcast first and foremost, I hoped they would have a different perspective on the matter. In a way, I was right.

Their guest was a man named Ryan Burge who had conducted a number of polls about religiosity and had written a book about the results. The results were consistent with similar kinds of polls and surveys from many other groups which all indicate that Americans are becoming less religious with each generation. This does not necessarily mean that everyone is becoming an atheist, Mr. Burge is quick to point out. But rather, they are unaffiliated with an organized religion. This has led to the creation of a new demographic: the Nones.

All of this is fine. All of this is consistent with other sources I have seen, heard or read over the past decade. So what did I find so objectionable that I screamed “fucking idiots” at my car radio over and over? You see, in addition to being a published pollster, Mr. Burge is also a pastor. And he just couldn’t help but pontificate on the implications of these most dire trends. And the hosts didn’t just lap it up, they piled on.

The main focus of their collective criticism of declining religiosity in the US is the effect it will have on charity and social safety nets. Mr. Burge strongly implied that the only charitable organizations out there doing any meaningful work for the less fortunate are all religious. I guess he’s never heard of Doctors Without Borders or Planned Parenthood or the Red Cross or the countless homeless shelters and soup kitchens run by local governments. So let’s crunch some numbers.

One of the reasons churches were initially granted de facto tax-free status (as opposed to 501c3 charities who have to apply for tax-free status) is that churches were presumed to be the social safety net of our society. The government in its infancy had no real welfare system, so any aid had to come from elsewhere. To encourage churches to fill that gap the federal government granted churches tax-exempt status. Since then, other charities have risen without any religious affiliation. These charities have to apply for tax-exempt status and release their financial records to the public AND there is an expectation (I’m not sure if it’s mandatory or not) that they will use at least 5% of their funds on their charitable work. Churches don’t have to do any of that.

Let’s look at the Mormon Church as an example, in part because I am the most familiar with them but also because they are widely known as one of the richest churches in the world despite their relatively small membership. They claim over 16 million members on their roles. They pull in at least $4-5 billion a year in tithing (likely much more than that) and several newspapers have estimated their assets at over 40 billion dollars. Some insiders have claimed the existence of a rainy day fund of over $121 billion. Yes, you read that right. $121,000,000,000. Which makes the total assets of the Red Cross (about $3 million) look paltry in comparison. This small church with astronomical coffers boasts $40 million per year of humanitarian aid worldwide. And while $40 million is hardly chump change, it makes up approximately 0.8% of their tithing budget. Compared to their rainy day fund it is 0.03%. Either way you want to count it, the Mormon church spends a fraction of the expected 5% that secular charities spend.

Let’s put a couple of things in perspective. In 2012 the Mormon church put nearly $2 billion in on a local mall (ostensibly so they could clean up downtown Salt Lake City (by displacing the growing homeless population)), which is roughly equal to 50 years of humanitarian aid by the church ($40 million x 50 years = $2 billion.)

In recent years Utah has put a tax on alcohol sales in state run liquor stores, the funds of which go towards the state school lunch program. Each year the amount of money raised from this tax is between $40-$50 million, approximately 10% of the $500 million in alcohol sales per year (well above the standard 5%). Utah has a population of 3 million. About half of the population in Utah is Mormon but about half of them are actually active Mormons. For the ease of numbers, let’s say 2 million people in the state are either not Mormon or are otherwise not opposed to buying alcohol. Let's say about half of them are underage. This leaves us around 1 million people who might possibly buy alcohol in the state. $50 million split 1 million ways comes out to about $50 per person per year going towards school lunches. Compare that to the 16 million Mormons worldwide who contribute roughly the same amount (again, worldwide), which comes to about $2.50 per Mormon per year. I’m sorry, but the alcohol drinkers of Utah do as much or more for charity just in their state of 3 million people as the Mormon church does worldwide! That doesn’t sound like it supports Mr. Burges’ argument at all.

The last time I paid tithing in the Mormon church I was a college student and paid a meager $1000 for the year (it was a bumper year, no doubt). If we use the more generous percentage of 0.8% going towards humanitarian causes this means approximately $8 of my tithing went to actual charity. Whereas, if I spend $50 per month on alcohol $5 will go to Utah schools, which amounts to $60 per year. And if I did my math right, I’m pretty sure $60 is significantly more than $8.

So, if such a small amount of the money one gives to churches actually goes to charitable causes, where does the rest of that money go? The church keeps it. They might put it into the building and utilities. They might pay their clergy (which even Mormons do, although many believe their clergy is unpaid). Or they might invest in stocks, land, malls and insurance firms (which is what the Mormon church has been doing for 50 years). But the problem is, one can never know how exactly a church uses their donations, because they are not obligated to disclose their financial information. Donating to a church you attend seems self-serving at best. But the truth is, many members who donate to churches are not able to get aid from their own church. I have heard countless stories of people who are told by their bishop that in order to receive welfare from the church they must first pay their tithing. And after they pay their tithing they still don’t get any assistance. And their children go hungry...

A Mormon once told me that they don’t want state run welfare because charity should come from religious communities. Well, are there not religious communities now? Are there still countless people being forced out of their homes right now? Utah has had a growing housing crisis for a few decades and more and more people are displaced from their homes each year. What is their religious community doing about that? What is the Mormon church doing about that? Are they going to build another billion dollar mall and displace more homeless people? Think of the housing they could build with that kind of money! They could literally end the housing crisis in their own backyard if they wanted to. Why don’t they? Clearly the existing religions are failing to keep up with demand. And they aren’t even meeting the bottom threshold of 5% that secular charities are expected to maintain. So, what good is your tithing actually doing?

FUDGEY NUMBERS

Every so often I go to the ExMormon subreddit. I try not to go too often for mental health reasons...

Today I saw a repost which caught my eye:

Normally such a post would yield a "huh, makes sense" response from me and I would be on my merry way to more positive forums on Reddit, like r/scotch and r/bourbon. But today... today I'm feeling a little salty. Maybe it's the Laphroiag 10 Year I recently purchased (it's like they bottled a campfire on a foggy ocean beach). Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Maybe the drivers on my morning commute were especially obtuse (Utah County shouldn't be allowed to have this much construction all at once). Yeah, that's probably it. 

At any rate, I did some digging. It turns out that the original news article is no longer available. Not a good sign regarding the veracity of statistics. Luckily, the DABC reports on such things in their annual report. And it turns out that the numbers are even higher than the Reddit post suggested. In 2018, Utah liquor sales contributed $45.43 million to the school lunch program in Utah. This is a no nonsense, no strings attached charitable contribution for those in need. Pretty cool, huh?

The second part of the post is pretty vague. It simply states that the Mormon church donates less per year than the amount collected from liquor sales. So, I had to dig a little deeper. First I found that the Mormon church claims to have contributed $2.2 billion (with a "B") in charitable aid worldwide since 1985. Bold claim. Too bad I can't verify this beyond what the Mormons say since their financial records have been undisclosed since the 1950's. But, let's do the unconscionable and take them at their word. $2.2 billion over 34 years averages roughly $64.7 million per year. Not bad. Certainly not chump change. But that's not a very firm figure, so I dug deeper still.

According to the church's own newspaper (why would they lie, amirite?), one of the highest level leaders of the Mormon church, Dallin Oaks, claimed that the church contributes about $40 million per year to charitable causes worldwide, and has done so "for more than 30 years." At $40 million per year over 34 years (to 1985), that comes to a total of $1.36 billion. Now, I'm no math wiz, but $2.2 billion does not equal $1.36 billion. That's a pretty sizable discrepancy. $840,000,000 to be approximate. 

This tells me a few things. First, the church's newsroom and the church's own newspaper and the church's leadership are not on message. Come on, guys. Fudging numbers only works if you're all united. Second, if both claims are roughly true (again, I'm throwing them a Pangaea-sized bone here), then we would have to assume that Mr. Oaks is citing more recent contributions whereas the other figure is more long-term. This seems more than fair if we grant Mr. Oaks was summarizing off the cuff. If these colossal and beyond generous assumptions are true, then it would mean that in recent years the church has contributed at least $14 million less per year than just a few decades ago.

Furthermore, Utah liquor sales contribute more to the welfare system of Utah per year than the Mormon church contributes worldwide.

It should be noted that in that same time the Mormon church claims to have gained more than double the members (1985 reported 5,919,483 total membership; 2018 reported 16,313,735 total membership; over 34 years reported gaining 10,394,252 members worldwide). This means that when they had 5.9 million members worldwide they were contributing roughly $64.7 million in charitable aid worldwide, (possibly more since $64.7 million is the average and earlier years would probably have been higher to off-set the $14 million average loss in later years ($14 million + $64.7 million = $78.7 million)) and now that they have 16.3 million members they are only contributing $40 million per year. In other words, if the numbers they provided are accurate, the Mormon church has contributed significantly less in worldwide charitable aid in recent years than in years past despite claiming significantly more members. 

To put this all into perspective, in 2012 the Mormon church funded a brand new mall right next to the church's headquarters in Salt Lake City to the tune of $2 billion, which is almost as much as the more generous of the two estimated charitable contributions since 1985. Huh, makes sense...

None of this takes into account the common stipulations put on the church's welfare system (like paying the church 10% of your annual income before receiving financial aid--yeah, let that sink in), which I actually have firsthand experience with. As a missionary I was a branch president for a small congregation in Bulgaria. Several members asked me in person for welfare from the church, but since they did not meet the church's requirements for welfare (not full tithe payers) I was not allowed to give anyone any assistance. Let me repeat, when I was in charge of a Mormon congregation in a developing part of the world I was instructed by church higher ups to not give anyone welfare money because they did not give me money first. We didn't have any other charity to offer either, unless you count the free English classes we missionaries offered twice a week. That's it. That's literally all we did for the local community. The rest of our time was spent going door to door trying to convince people that if they didn't join our church and give us 10% of their income they wouldn't be able to see their family for the rest of eternity. 

Tell me again how churches are inherently good for society and deserve tax exempt status...

TALKING 'BOUT MY SUPERSTITION

Over the weekend several of my Mormon friends and family posted links to articles about a new revolutionary study which seems to confirm one of their favorite religious prohibitions against the consumption of alcohol.

On the surface, I get it. It feels nice to be vindicated. So, why not gloat a little bit? It's not like pride is a sin. Right?

I have a few things to say about this new study. First, the headlines of the articles linking this study are a bit misleading, claiming that "no amount" of alcohol is good for your overall health, etc. Right, just like no amount of soda, candy bars or binge watching Netflix is good for your overall health. The authors of the study admit from the outset that this particular point is complex and that there are some studies which show that moderate alcohol consumption "can have a protective effect on ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and several other outcomes." Before reading this study I had never heard of these benefits before. I assumed that it was general knowledge that alcohol wasn't really healthy and even people who cited those articles from the nineties about the potential health benefits of drinking red wine (which had more to do with the grapes used to make the wine than the alcohol) did so with a wink and a nod.

Second, the risk of lower alcohol consumption is proportionally lower than higher levels of consumption. Meaning, the more you drink, the higher the risk. This is a bit like saying the more you drive your car, the more likely you are to get into an accident. The only way to completely minimize one's risk of a car accident is to never get into a car. It should be apparent that this is an oversimplification, and, therefore, not very revolutionary, even when applied to alcohol.

Third, I have a problem with their lumping together of certain kinds of risks. Specifically, disease related risks (i.e. cancer and tuberculosis) and risks related to one's actions (i.e. car accidents and self harm). To me, these are important to distinguish because risks related to actions can be moderated through responsible drinking, and can be complicated through other factors like mental illness. If a person with depression drinks they are more likely to try to hurt themselves than someone without depression. From what I can gather, the study shows that there is a higher risk of alcohol contributing to deaths caused by accidents and self harm than caused by disease especially among people under 50 years old. The study also claims that for people between 15-49 alcohol is one of the most common factors for cause of death. What I infer from this is that one shouldn't drink and drive, and one shouldn't drink if they have depression or another mental illness which might be affected by alcohol. Furthermore, these factors can be managed through responsible drinking, and knowing one's limits. 

Fourth, the study is limited in that its methodology basically amounts to drawing conclusions based on correlations, and the integrity of the results depends on the methodology of other researchers (if a study used a flawed methodology it would affect the meta-analysis). This is a problem of meta-analyses in general. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for for these limitations (most likely financial), and I'm not saying this discredits the study necessarily. I'm saying this is a potential problem which makes it difficult to prove causality. If anything, this just shows the need for further research, especially since this particular study claims to dispute some findings of previous studies. 

Alcohol has risks. No one has seriously disputed this in decades. But lots of things have risks. Lots of good things like driving cars or other foods and drinks. Lots of medications, such as aspirin, Tylenol and Ibuprofen, have negative effects on one's liver similar to alcohol, although to lesser degrees. These risks should absolutely be accounted for while making a decision. But let's not pretend that Mormons abstain from alcohol for health reasons (Utah has more soda shops than bars, despite the link between soda and type II diabetes). 

The Word of Wisdom (the basis for the Mormon prohibition against alcohol) is actually not against all alcohol consumption, and even says that wine is preferred for use in the sacrament: 

"5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies."

There are even some who argue that the WoW did not intend to prohibit beer--only wine and liquor. This is how some Mormons justify their use of Kombucha. Not to mention that Joseph Smith, the one who wrote the WoW, never made it a hard set rule, but only a suggestion and continued to drink alcohol with his apostles until the day he died. 

Let's suppose that there are no issues with this study and that there is now clear and indisputable evidence that alcohol is always bad and will eventually kill everyone everywhere. Until such evidence was found, believers did not have a sound reason for abstaining from alcohol. Refusing to do something because god told you not to do it is not a good reason to not do it. And now that there is a good reason to not do it believers do not get to retroactively claim that they were justified all along. 

Muslims and Orthodox Jews have prohibited the consumption of pork for centuries. The original claim was that pigs shouldn't be eaten because they are unclean animals. This was a spiritual claim, not a hygienic one. Now that modern science can examine the composition of meats, some Jews and Muslims are claiming vindication because pork has high sodium and fat content. They claim that god knew this all along and he was protecting them through these prohibitions. Well, pork isn't the only meat with high sodium and fat content. So is beef, and that is totally Kosher (so long as it doesn't have cheese on it, of course). And if god is using these ancient prohibitions to save lives, why didn't he reveal something useful, like washing your hands before you eat or after delivering a child. 

There are plenty of reasons to not drink alcohol, including just simply not having a desire to drink it. But using a religious prohibition as a reason to not do something is tantamount to superstition. And if a superstition turns out to have a nugget of truth behind it, it is still not wisdom. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on superstitions, among other things:

THE NONES HAVE IT

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things--that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Physicist and Nobel Laureate








Another friend of mine has ventured down the mind-numbing rabbit hole of discussing religion on Facebook. The main focus of the conversation is on an article which suggests that raising children without religion may have better outcomes than raising children with religion. This is an interesting proposition. Religions often claim to offer exclusive benefits to adherents. If such benefits are not exclusive--or, as the article suggests, come from the opposite direction--then what good is the religion? In my experience, anything good which a religion does can just as easily be done through purely secular means.

I recall a similar conversation from my youth, wherein a Mormon referred to an article which claimed that Mormons are healthier than other denominations. At face value, this seems to confirm the Mormon claim that god blesses members of their sect more than others. However, one must also consider variables which are not exclusive to Mormons.

For instance, Mormons prohibit alcohol and tobacco. These two things alone put Mormons at a lower risk of several conditions, including liver and lung diseases. It isn't Mormonism, per se, which is beneficial, but rather the indirect--and non-exclusive--benefits of a particular emphasis within Mormonism. Similarly, Hindus often tout the health benefits of their vegetarian/vegan diet, which Mormons tend to discount.

A non-religious person, on the other hand, can look objectively at the potential health benefits of any diet and make an informed decision as to which aspects they wish to adopt. Meaning, there is nothing which stops a non-religious person from abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, or meat. And they don't need a religious mandate to do so. They can make a decision based on evidence. They can even decide that moderation--rather than dietary abstinence--is right for them, which is a luxury not afforded by divine fiat.

Most of the "benefits" of a non-religious upbringing are actually simply an absence of the negative effects of religion. A non-religious child does not grow to fear hell or eternal punishment; they are not set back sexually by an aversion to contraception or comprehensive sex education; generally, they do not learn that homosexuals are deviants from whom children should be shielded; the love of their parents is not set on conditions of religious obedience. The list goes on, and to be fair, not every negative point on the list applies to every religion, and I'm sure that some points do not apply all non-religious people.

Other benefits fall more into socioeconomic metrics of society as a whole. For instance, more secular nations tend to have better healthcare and welfare programs and prison systems.

It seems clear to me that a non-religious upbringing offers many people a better life than a religious one. But what happens when an adult, especially one which has built their worldview and morality upon the premise that god will punish or reward them after death, transitions from religion to non-religion?

Many people struggle to make this transition, which is one reason some people avoid it at all costs ("There must be a god! There just must be!"). The idea that god may not exist truly terrifies them. Religions, and in particular more fundamental sects, teach members that if there is no god to issue postmortem justice, then there is no reason to do good, and no reason to refrain from doing bad.

The sort of dirt bags who really believe that the only reason they should not kill or rape or steal is because god will punish them can only be described as amoral sociopaths. However, I have found such people to be rare, and most people who have bought into this philosophical drivel simply do not give themselves enough credit. They are better than their religion would have them believe. Still, navigating through the quagmire of morality is daunting, especially for people reconsidering their tenuous faith-based reasons for pro-social behavior.

As for myself, I choose to not act like a jerk because I don't want people to treat me like I'm a jerk. This is my version of the golden rule, I guess. It doesn't always work in every situation, but, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, it is about as good a rule of thumb for morality as any.

Some of the responses to my friend's post irked me something royal. One person accused my friend of being ungrateful to his religious grandfather by leaving and criticizing religion. This appeal to emotion is significant in two ways. First, it is fallacious to the point of nonsense. Second, it reveals the basis upon which my friend's detractor has built his worldview: emotion, rather than reason.

It is this coercive core of religious belief which traps many would-be defectors. Even I fell victim to Mormonism's entrancing concept of eternal families, and for many years I feared what my disobedience or apostasy would mean for my family in the eternities. This kind of emotional blackmail upsets me a great deal. I don't have a strong enough adjective to describe my disdain for this kind of manipulation. It is pure evil. Holding relationships hostage in this way is reason enough to dismiss out of hand any worldview which utilizes it. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tim Minchin, If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out:

MEET THE MORONS

"I give money for church organs in the hope that the organ music will distract the congregation's attention from the rest of the service."

--Andrew Carnegie

A few months ago the Mormon church produced a film called "Meet The Mormons." This propaganda piece, which focuses on the stories of six carefully selected camera-friendly Mormons, came with an interesting catch: all proceeds will go to the American Red Cross. Earlier this week, the church made good on this promise to the order of 1.8 million dollars. Interesting.

Although the film itself contains no useful information about the church's teachings or history, I do know a jaw-dropping thing or two about how the film came to be.

First, the film was funded entirely by tithing money offered by church members. Second, the church told members to pay to see the movie (which explains why it was so well-received...), effectively coercing members to pay twice. Third, the movie grossed over 7.8 million dollars (there is some discrepancy between sources, 7.8 million is the highest estimation). After expenses (paying back the church the tithing money spent to produce the film and to distribute the film to theaters and on media, about 6 million dollars in total), the church gave what was left to the Red Cross, 1.8 million dollars.

So, the church spent 6 million dollars of members' money in order to raise 1.8 million for the Red Cross? The return on this investment seems minuscule, unless you're the Mormon church, of course.

The church got a free propaganda film, which was designed to show the positive face of Mormonism without addressing any real or meaningful issues, while giving a fraction of the costs of that film to a true charity. They poured more money into the movie industry to promote themselves than they gave to people in need of life-saving blood.

Keep in mind, while 1.8 million dollars is not chump change, if the church really wanted to help the Red Cross they could have just given them the money they spent on the film. After all, the members paid for it anyway.

What is 6 million dollars to a multi-billion dollar religious corporation with an annual revenue of about 8 billion dollars a year from tithing alone--tax free? After all, they recently threw over 10 times the 1.8 million given to the Red Cross at a for-profit shopping mall in Salt Lake City. That's right. The church spent 1.8 billion (with a "B") on a shopping mall and they gave a tenth of that to a charity that saves lives.

Maybe they just payed their tithing...

A PEACE OF MY MIND

"To know a person's religion we need not listen to his profession of faith but must find his brand of intolerance."
—ERIC HOFFER

"Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish."
—ANONYMOUS

A couple of months ago I received an email from a ward clerk (record keeper) for a local branch of the
Mormon church. Basically, they want to know if they have my correct address, phone number etc, so that they can appropriately fellowship me (in other words, harass me until I begrudgingly come back to church). I promptly deleted the email in part because I don't want that kind of harassment, and also I don't want to make this too easy for them.

Honestly, I don't oppose the idea of having some missionaries or a home teacher or even a bishop track me down for a lengthy, in-depth religious conversation. I just want them to work for it...

A couple of weeks later I received another email from Mormon church headquarters asking me to take a survey to help them determine "general trends" within the church. Suspecting this to be a mildly clever ploy to pick up where the last email had failed, I declined the invitation. Two weeks later, a reminder email was sent inviting me, the randomly selected church member who's regular church attendance is not necessary for participation, to take this survey. 

While I haven't actually followed the link as of writing this sentence, I have been debating whether or not I should click it. After all, faults aside, the church is often as clever as it is non-random. Not to mention my curiosity often gets the better of me.

But first, I recently came across a new (to me) podcast called "Thank God I'm Atheist" which, being based in Mormon-friendly Salt Lake City, Utah, often discusses Mormon topics and issues. And it turns out that the Church sent out a survey to 1000 random members to see how the general membership feels about the recent excommunication of one Kate Kelly. 

For those who don't know, Ms Kelly is the founder of the "Ordain Women" movement, which consists of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Mormon women who go to the General Conference Priesthood Session (a male-only, world-wide church meeting) and, being denied admittance to the meeting, walk away peacefully. Now, the reason for Ms Kelly's expulsion from the church's membership is evidently for merely not doing as The Brethren (old, rich, white men) told her to do, namely stopping the quietest protests ever. 

Coincidentally, John Dehlin (about whom I have written before) is also facing possible excommunication from the church for his podcast "Mormon Stories", which addresses difficult issues within Mormonism. Again, his crime is simply not doing as The Brethren have asked, which in his case is to cease bringing up such touchy, disconcerting topics in such a public and accessible way. 

No theocracy would be complete without ample censorship...

Well, let's see if the link to the survey still works (the email specifically asks that I do not share the link, but, meh. Click it if you feel especially dickish). 

Ok, the link works and I have finished the survey (which rather disappointingly had nothing to do with Ms Kelly) and I will post screen shots of the survey along with my responses below: 

Welcome screen:

Starting easy...

Vague preliminary stuff.

 Basic, but getting meatier.

Hmmm, they sure do like to assume I believe in god, even though the very first question was whether or not I consider myself Mormon (nope)...

Eh, more of the same.

More loaded questions assuming a belief in god.

Believe it or not, I still occasionally read scripture passages, although, not for the usual reasons...

Bleh.

More bleh.

Straightforward.

Funny how the first option for reasons not to go to church is being offended by people at church. I could have selected more, but I want my primary reasons to be concise and clear.

Just a repeat of the last screen ("is that your final answer?")

It seems that they really want me to admit I don't go to church because of people. Weird.

Ah, a pertinent question.

Ok, ok.

Finally a chance to clear the air a bit. And I had to squeeze in a little Hitchens at the end. 

Trying to fish out other possible reasons for my leaving church. But they don't allow me to explain that the two "life changes" were a direct result of my desire to stop going to church, not the other way around. 

See what I did there?

Come on, really? Given my earlier responses, why would you even ask?

Surprise! There isn't much money in atheist blogging.

More loaded questions. Man, I really want to elaborate on a few of these.

Check.

Brown chicken, brown cow.

Pretty sure...

Kind of disappointed that they didn't ask me if I'm living in sin here.

Not sure why this is relevant.

From "god's university" no less.

Suck it.

I actually clicked "yes" at first, which took me to a screen to provide them with a bunch of personal information (sly dogs). So naturally I went back and selected "no", again not to make things too easy.

Not sure if "uncomfortable" is the right word... maybe "sickly", or "bloated".

Yay, another chance to clarify things a bit.

Quid pro quo, if you dare. Buahahaha!

Of course they did.