KILL 'EM ALL

Let's get right to it. Based on the teachings many religious traditions, including the religion of my youth (Mormonism), one of the most moral things one can do is abort as many fetuses as possible. 

The argument is simple, really: Aborted fetuses get a one-way ticket to heaven. Abortion is murder and damns the parents to hell. Knowing that aborting a fetus will damn you while saving your unborn child for eternity makes it an eternal sacrifice. Therefore, aborting as many fetuses as possible while knowing that doing so damns you is an infinitely more moral act than raising them in a religion where they might not make the cut into heaven and be damned. What could be moral? Compare that to the weekend Jesus gave up to save only those who believe in him. 

Of course this creates a moral paradox. Committing such a selfless act as choosing damnation to save your children should be enough to save such a person from said damnation. But the whole concept of heaven and hell is ridiculous and is by definition deserving of ridicule. 

DEAD HORSE WALKING

When I was a young Mormon boy I listened intently as the adults around me split hairs about whether or not it was appropriate for a young Mormon boy, such as myself, to wear a light blue dress shirt while passing the sacrament to the congregation. They settled on "it's not necessarily inappropriate, but a white shirt is preferred."

When I was a young Mormon man, I listened to my fellow young Mormon missionaries discuss the same topic, which had the added complication that many of the men which attended our congregations were too poor to afford clean, sterling-white dress shirts (post-communist Bulgaria in the early 2000's), and such a restriction would result in not allowing very many "locals" the "opportunity" to distribute chunks of white bread and tiny cups of water to the parishioners. The consensus was "It doesn't matter if it's inappropriate to wear a blue shirt or not; what choice do we have? Surely the Lord will understand our predicament."

And so on...

It seems that the blue shirt vs white shirt debate has been going on for generations and resurrects, as it were, every so often. I suppose this argument dies particularly hard because for many Mormons it is the closest they will ever come to theological nuance.

Invariably, whenever this dying horse finds new life, thereby prolonging its obligatory flogging, a secondary debate emerges: culture vs doctrine.

As one who has left the Mormon church, I rarely find the opportunity to join in these debates with believing members. And, for the record, I'm okay with that. But I do recall a few instances discussing philosophy and epistemology with Mormons and this topic has briefly come up. Since it isn't really that important to my overall critique of Mormonism (believers have no compelling reason to claim their positive feelings about the truth claims of the church are, in fact, from god, and, therefore, have no compelling reason to believe the church is true), I usually skip the debate between culture and doctrine in the moment. But I tend find myself thinking about it some time later. It's a curse.

The long and short of my argument is that you can't separate culture from doctrine just because you don't want to appear pedantic over minutia. The culture of the church is a reflection of its doctrine. There is a reason leaders of the church have stressed these seemingly minor things over the pulpit. Because, according to them, it matters. It is a way of gauging one's dedication to the church, and I don't mean this cynically. For church leaders it really is an effective shortcut for worthiness.

For example, the Word of Wisdom (Mormonism's rather underwhelming code of health) recommends against the drinking of coffee. As with the blue shirt vs white shirt debate, Mormons have debated the topic of coffee consumption for generations and I know of a few devout believers who look forward to the day when drinking coffee will no longer prevent one from entering the temple and going through the ordinances necessary for one's salvation (that's right, Mormons believe that drinking coffee is a serious enough transgression to warrant god denying the "sinner" eternal salvation). But as more and more studies come out which show that coffee has at least some health benefits (depending on how much sugar and cream one adds to it), more and more Mormons are finding abstinence from the drink to be less and less tenable on the grounds of health and wellness (this is important because Mormons generally believe that their more obscure beliefs will eventually be validated by the scientific community, thus allowing them to smugly taunt non-believers with a hearty "told you so."). And for this reason Mormons are focusing less on the health debate (because, again, they are losing it) and instead tout the point that sometimes god asks mankind to do things for reasons they don't understand as a test of one's faith.

Fair enough, I guess. However, before anyone claims this frail bit of reasoning to be innocuous, keep in mind such reasoning could give way to another Abraham and Issac situation (or, for any Mormons eyeing an apologetic response about the literalness of the Bible, Nephi and Laban (according to the Book of Mormon, god told Nephi to chop off the head of Laban while he was drunk and defenseless, then go to Laban's house, dressed in Laban's presumably blood-soaked clothing, and steal Laban's stuff and kidnap his servant, who Nephi also threatened to kill; and Mormons believe this was a moral thing to do.)), and who knows if round two would yield such a favorable outcome (regardless of the outcome, it was still an immoral thing for god to ask of Abraham or Nephi).

Well, the debate between culture and doctrine seems to have been lit anew as one of Mormonism's very tippy-top leaders, Dallin Oaks, while speaking to a large congregation, reinforced the importance of using the correct hand to partake of the sacrament. Let me restate this. One of god's representatives, a man who claims to be a "prophet, seer and revelator" (whatever that means) and also claims to have such a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus Christ that he can unequivocally speak on his behalf, chose as his topic to a mass of believers the importance of using your right hand to eat bread and drink water instead of your left hand.

And they wonder why members get hung up about blue and white dress shirts...

MODERATE INTELLIGENCE

I recently had the unexpected pleasure of discussing Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith) with a Mormon. By "unexpected pleasure" I mean that although this individual disagrees with Sam Harris on several points, he was still open to the conversation and willing to consider other points of view. Two points of contention this person has with Sam Harris are his anti-theistic views of religion generally (which I totally understand from a believing Mormon's perspective) and Sam's seemingly disparaging views of Islam specifically.

On the first point, I recommended this person look up Christopher Hitchens and reconsider whether Sam Harris really is that hostile towards religion in comparison.

On the second point, well, it gets more complicated. On the one hand, I think that Sam Harris has some valid and pointed criticisms of Islam and has made a career speaking publicly about the potential, and in some cases demonstrable, harm which the religion's scriptures and preachments can produce.

For instance, the infamous 9/11 hijacking was committed by the truest of believers, as was the murder of Danish cartoonists and filmmakers, the fatwa on the head of Salman Rushdie for the crime of writing a fictional book, the fatwa on Ayaan Hirsi Ali for leaving the religion and speaking out against chopping off the clitoris of baby girls, the countless and ongoing atrocities committed by ISIS against homosexuals and infidels, the murderous riots which stemmed from an inflammatory video daring to depict the Prophet Muhammad (one of which resulted in the Benghazi kerfuffle), and many other instances of faithful Muslims who take their religion and its texts literally.

The trouble with Sam's view, or rather the perception of Sam's view which I would argue he hasn't done enough to correct, is that these many examples of extremism are not representative of the religion as a whole, in much the same way that not all Christians are responsible for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, the Holocaust, bombings of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors. To confound the matter, many misunderstand Sam Harris' criticisms of the beliefs and tenets of Islam as bigotry against Muslim people (see video below).

In a way, and I am hardly the first to make this point, the Muslim world is currently undergoing a series of growing pains similar to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Hopefully more moderate Muslims will win out, as with Christians, but only time will tell. And I think this is Sam's overall point in criticizing Islam. It's not that Islam necessarily results in terrorism. But rather that it's teachings can be interpreted in such a way that terrorism is a result. A Christian example would be how Hitler exploited traditional Christian beliefs and prejudices about the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus to build his Nazi army.

Likewise, the Bible supports some terrible things as well, such as the subjugation of women, the genocide of various middle eastern tribes, the stoning of homosexuals, apostates, disobedient children, those who work on the Sabbath, those who eat shellfish and those who wear mixed fabrics. If any Christian or Jewish sect followed the Bible literally and enforced these rules--which believers often defend as morally necessary for the time and people of the Bible--we in civilized society would have a moral obligation to stamp it out. Fortunately, however, most Christians and Jews don't take their holy books that seriously.

So when Sam Harris calls Islam "the mother load of bad ideas" understand that he means this in a context in which Muslims take their religion seriously and literally, and that the only real criticism a moderate believer can level against a scriptural literalist is a lack of nuance which all too often is based on an irreconcilable cognitive dissonance in the mind of the moderate. In other words, the reason a moderate is not a literalist is often because taking scripture literally--like when the Bible tells you what is an acceptable consequence for a disobedient slave--conflicts with a person's inner morality. Both are arguing from a position of faith and a presumption of scriptural authority, rather than reason and evidence. Therefore, how can one side claim the other is wrong in any absolute sense?

It seems to me that the best way for Muslims and Christians and Jews to assimilate into a cooperative multicultural society may well be for the growing moderates to cherry pick their respective religious texts and disregard the unpleasant bits. We may in fact depend on this apparent hypocrisy. The trouble seems to come from believing in the inerrancy of scripture. As much as I would like to see religion become a thing of the past, I must admit that a world of self-serving cherry-picking moderates is preferable to a world of valiant idealistic literalists.

And in an effort for transparency, I have been guilty of making sweeping generalizations about Muslims in the past of the sort Sam Harris is often accused, and have even written posts on this blog which today make me cringe. I have considered taking the posts down, but I feel they are an important part of my journey away from religion, as painful as they may be to me now.



BONUS MATERIAL:



Sam Harris calling Islam "the mother load of bad ideas" and Ben Affleck losing his mind:

MULTI-LEVEL MORMONING

Outside of every Mormon church building is a sign which states "Visitors Welcome." Only a couple of times in my years as a Mormon have I ever seen anyone take up this offer. Each time the visitors were swarmed by smiling faces eager to set up a meeting with the local missionaries so that the visitors could promptly be baptized (why else would god "inspire" them to walk through the door?). Never have I seen this tactic of flurried interest result in a new Mormon.

Most Mormons seem to have no idea why anyone outside of the church would have no interest in their religion. Mormons believe they have found the one true church with exclusive rights to truth and lasting happiness in this life and the next. Think of it like a pyramid scheme or Multi-Level Marketing company, which happen to do quite well in Utah (after all, why would your bishop's wife lie?). A person who buys into the rhetoric and truly believes the claims that their product has legitimate value and can improve everyone's life will have a similarly difficult time understanding why some people, such as myself, don't care how essential oils helped cure you of your chronic halitosis.

The MLM concept that each employee is a "CEO" of their own business is not unlike the Mormon concept that "every member is a missionary." Furthermore, just as MLM's require their "CEO's" to buy large quantities of product, the Mormon church holds individual member's salvation and eternal families at ransom for 10% of gross (can you really put a price tag on eternal happiness?).

Some Mormons, however, are less credulous. Well, in certain regards, anyway. For instance, once while engaged in an argument on social media wherein I called out the blatant homophobic policies of the Mormon church (shortly after the church announced that homosexuals are apostates and that children of homosexuals in a loving consensual gay marriage could not join the church without reaching the age of eighteen and publicly denouncing the sinful lifestyle of their homosexual parents), a believing Mormon plainly stated that they could not understand why any homosexual would actually choose to be a member of the church. To which I responded: "The Mormon church has made it clear that it is not a welcome place for homosexuals, and it is up to members to decide whether or not that is a good thing." Not long after my comment, this person unfriended me.

In a less dramatic conversation, a family member told me they couldn't understand why someone who wasn't a member of the church would willingly live in Provo, Utah (where BYU is located). At the time I didn't respond, in part due to the fact that this person had no idea that their comment applied to myself. But I think it is quite telling that even believing Mormons recognize that their religion isn't very tolerant or welcoming of outsiders (I can only imagine what it must have been like in Missouri 150 years ago...), which makes their missionary efforts and welcome signs outside their assembly halls seem unnecessary and ironic.

What does it say about Mormonsim if the one place in the world where their church has true power and influence--Provo, Utah--makes non-Mormons feel oppressed or unwelcome? What does it say about a church which claims to be "family centric" if a large minority of the population (up to 10%) and their families are excluded from "the one true church" simply because of who they are? What does it say about the church's leadership when believing members of their church bring attention to the injustices and harm caused by the church's policies and the leaders respond by excommunicating the whistle blowers?

You can tell a lot about an ideology by the way they treat heretics and apostates.

BABY STEPPED IN BULLCRAP

Every so often I hear believers swoon over some religious leader who said something that wasn't completely terrible. Congratulations to them for managing to scrounge up at least a modicum of human decency. Can I stop holding my breath now?

Perhaps these baby steps are a good sign. But don't expect me to ignore their long history of abuses for which they have yet to atone.

Probably the most blatant example of this two-faced ingratiation is Pope Francis. On the one hand, he pays the most swell-sounding lip service to progressive Catholics on topics like, say, gay rights. But on the other hand, if you know anything about actual Catholic doctrine, you can hardly say that the Pope is a friend of the LGBT community. Case in point: a few weeks ago social media was all a flutter over an anecdote of a gay man who had a one-on-one conversation with Francis, wherein the self-proclaimed infallible Holy See said of the man's homosexuality and abuse he suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest, "You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say."

So there you have it. The Pope, and by extension the Catholic church as a whole, is now totally squared on the LGBT issue. Except that he isn't. If he was actually interested in righting wrongs against LGBT people he would actually change church policy to be more inclusive--which is something that the Pope could do! But he doesn't seem interested in that. Which means that he isn't really interested in making amends or ending abuse.

Some people have argued that Pope Francis is laying the ground work for more impactful change in future generations. Bullcrap. Did Moses lay inter-generational ground work to prepare the Israelites for the Ten Commandments? No, he destroyed the golden calf and made them wander in the desert for forty years. Did Jesus ease the Pharisees into the higher law? No, he raided the money changers in the temple and called local church leadership a bunch of greedy hypocrites. Did Pope Benedict simply fulfill John Paul's end game by abandoning the atrocious centuries-old doctrine of Limbo? No! That's not how a top down theocracy works! God tells the Pope, the Pope tells the church, the church accepts it as dogma. And according to the church's dogma, once the Pope makes something official, anyone who disagrees--including politically motivated Cardinals--is in the wrong. That's how infallibility works.

This same principle applies to the Mormon church and their "prophet" as well. A handful of lower-tier leaders have made efforts to soften the church's stance on LGBT issues (while others have hardened it), and progressive Mormons sing their praises. But in terms of actually policy, there is no place for homosexuals in the church. At least none which the mental health community would call healthy. And the fact that this is just the latest example of the church being decades behind the times shows how very fallible their theocratic system is.

Every year Provo hosts a giant patriotic circle-jerk for the Fourth of July. The night before the big day they kick off the event with an informal parade where everyday folk drive cars and motorcycles up and down State Street making all kinds of noise for hundreds of cheering pedestrians lining the sidewalk. The next morning, along the same street and in much the same fashion, is a formal Freedom Festival parade. The evening is filled with fireworks and music and dancing at the Stadium of Fire, which  conveniently rakes in a boatload of money for Mormon-owned BYU.

Last year the Freedom Festival brought controversy to the event when it came to light that every single LGBT advocacy group which had petitioned for a float in the parade was denied. This year, the mayor signed a statement that the festival would not discriminate against any group on the basis of sexual orientation. And the very next day, the festival denied all of the same LGBT groups participation in the parade on the basis that they were not "patriotic." Which, of course, raises the question of how the festival can in turn allow a group of 150+ Mormon missionaries to march in the parade...

In response, several LGBT supporters began making plans for a protest during the parade, which is similarly allowed during the Salt Lake Pride Parade, only from the other direction (what's more patriotic than a protest?).

Well, in a rare display of public outcry--at least for Utah County--LGBT advocates seem to have won the day. The festival organizers have agreed to allow LGBT groups in the parade so long as they abide by certain patriotic stipulations, including wearing red, white and blue colored clothes and waving American flags, etc. Interestingly, for the first time, the Mormon missionary mob will not be participating in the parade, but will instead be volunteers helping run the festivities. My guess is that this is intended to allow missionaries to rub elbows with patrons more freely. Clever, I guess.

My favorite part of the whole debacle, and the most reassuring sign that Utah is capable of baby steps even if the Mormon church isn't, is that Utah County Commissioner Nathan Ivie threatened to pull taxpayer funding for the event ($113,000) if the organizers continued to discriminate against LGBT groups, and had this to say: "I also know bulls--- when I see it. I didn’t think somebody would be stupid enough to do what they did."

Perhaps Mr. Ivie is new to Utah...

UNDER THE RUG

In the ever-growing wake of religious scandals (abuse and rape of children, fraud, theft, dark political money) the Mormon church has always found a way to minimize its own questionable practices as they come to public light. For instance, when critics found millions of dollars of money coming from the church to influence the 2008 vote in California on Proposition 8 (which would change the California constitution to make gay marriage illegal), believers said the figure was grossly exaggerated, and that most of the funds came in the form of Mormon volunteers going door to door to rally supporters for "traditional marriage."

In November 2015 the church announced that homosexuals are considered apostates to the church and that children of homosexuals in a gay marriage could not join the church until they reached the age of eighteen (rather than eight) and only after they formally denounce the gay marriage of their parents. The church tried to soften the PR blow back by interviewing D. Todd Christofferson (a high ranking Mormon Apostle with a conveniently gay brother) by an active believing lackey fielding pre-approved softball questions emphasizing that the church super duper loves gay people and the purpose of this change is to not cause division among gay households, just like they do with polygamous households (never mind that gay marriage is legal and polygamy is not).

When the church received criticism about conducting "worthiness" interviews of adolescents as young as twelve years old, wherein the church leader would ask explicit detailed questions about the youth's sexuality and masturbation practices, the church reluctantly--and only recently--conceded that parents could be present during such interviews (apparently this isn't a new thing, and there is a protest march at Temple Square scheduled for this Friday. Fun.). It should be noted that even with this "change" church leaders will still ask pre-teen boys and girls whether or not they masturbate with the intent to help them repent of their transgression. 

When concerned Mormon parents encouraged a grassroots movement to record these sexually explicit interviews of minors to show the world how inappropriate such questions are for a grown man to be asking children, the Utah state legislature tried to pass a law which would make such recordings illegal (how's that for separation of church and state?).

When the church came under scrutiny for not encouraging church leaders to report child abuse to the police, the church's attourneys responded with the "Gold Standard" defense, claiming that if they reported abuse to the police, fewer people would feel comfortable confiding in the bishop. 

In 1978--well past the tail end of the civil rights movement--the Mormon church, which had always maintained that god will never grant priesthood authority to black men because of the curse of Cain and their lackluster performance during the pre-mortal war in heaven, backtracked on the issue and allowed black people full membership rights, including admission into their temples and allowing black men to hold priesthood office. Mormons still have a hard time understanding why black people aren't jumping at the chance to join the church nearly forty years after this announcement.

In 1890 the Mormon church announced that the eternal principal of plural marriage (i.e. polygamy) would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. In 1904 the Mormon church announced again that the eternal principal of plural marriage would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. Why the second announcement? Because many believing faithful Mormons didn't buy the ruse. They knew that the only reason the Mormon president made the announcement in the first place was because the US government was threatening to seize the church's assets, including their million dollar mini-mansions (i.e. temples). It was largely seen as a political move, and even the president of the church who made the announcement, Wilford Woodruff, married yet-another-wife afterwards. Those who did not see it as a political move denounced Woodruff as a false prophet. Now the church hems and haws and tries to downplay the importance that polygamy played in the church, but their scriptures and several decades of church leadership clearly and unequivocally state that polygamy is necessary to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. To this day several Mormon sects and even individual Mormon leaders still practice polygamy (including current president of the church Russell Nelson!). 

Most recently a woman has accused Joseph Bishop (a high profile Mormon who has held very significant positions within the church, such as Mission President in Argentina, Mission President to the Missionary Training Center, and President of Weber State University) of sexual abuse and attempted rape while she was a missionary under him in the MTC (mid 1980s). I won't go into the details of the abuse here since others have done so quite thoroughly (Infants of Thrones, Mormon Stories). Instead I want to focus on the church's response to these allegations (their official statement). 

The long and short of it is that the church claims it went through proper legal channels and reported the abuse to police and did not have enough evidence on their own to issue any discipline to Bishop at the time (to put this into context, a couple years ago John Dehlin was excommunicated for using the Mormon Stories podcast to discuss problems with Mormon church history and abuses by the church against homosexuals, and Kate Kelly was excommunicated for creating the Ordain Women movement and suggesting that the church should allow women to hold the same leadership positions as men within the church). This is strange to me since we now know of a second woman who has made similar accusations against Bishop, and the first woman recorded a conversation between herself and Bishop wherein he admits he "confessed all his sins" to his ecclesiastical leader, including the abuse of both of these women. He also strongly implies that he abused other women for many years. 

Maybe he's lying. Maybe the recording was faked. Maybe it's all true, but the church didn't know the details or extent of the abuse. Maybe the church is lying. Who knows? But let's suppose that the church's version of the story is completely true. Does this make things better? Not in the view of a believing Mormon. 

You see, Mormons believe that their church leaders have what they call "the power of discernment." Basically this means that they have a direct line to god and if someone is lying during a worthiness interview (like when they ask a twelve year old girl if she masturbates) god will let the church leader know. Nothing gets past god. Except, apparently, Joseph Bishop. 

A couple years ago I posted something on my Facebook page about Utah having an unusually high suicide and homelessness rate for gay teens as a direct result of the November 2015 policy change discussed above. In response, a Mormon acquaintance sent me a blog article (unfortunately the link appears to be broken), which sought to make the case that Utah had the same rate of suicide for gay teens as any other state. If I had granted that this blogger's assessment was accurate, I would still be left asking why Utah wasn't better than all the other states. If the Mormon church is true, then surely they should be better suited to help those most in need of support. The claim that the predominately Mormon state of Utah is just as bad as anywhere else is a tacit admission that the church doesn't really make things better in important social matters. 

Furthermore, that fact that the church has such a long history of being several years behind every social movement of the past hundred years (with the exception of women having the right to vote, which Mormon apologists love to point out, but which can easily be explained as an opportunistic way for Mormons who still practiced polygamy to cast more votes per household. So there's that.) begs the question, in what sense is the Mormon church true? In what sense does the church make people behave better? In what sense does god lead the church and its leaders? 

Why would god not tell Joseph Bishop's priesthood leader that he's lying about his worthiness? Why would god allow Bishop to be promoted through the ranks of the church amid prolonged sexual abuse? For Mormons who want to fall back on the adage that god does not intervene due to agency, first of all, that is a terribly convenient excuse, don't you think? Second, that doesn't explain why god allowed Bishop to be promoted. In addition to leaders having the power of discernment, Mormons believe that if a leader becomes sinful or abuses their power, god will remove them from that position. Why didn't he do it to Bishop? 

What the hell, here's a scripture for reference: D&C 121:37 "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

It's almost as if god doesn't exist... 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tracie Harris on god allowing children to be raped.

DUMB IT DOWN

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."
--Dilbert

Some of the more convoluted religious discussions I have participated in have been on the topic of salvation for the mentally disabled. Many religions claim that entrance into heaven is conditional upon certain acts of contrition and ritual manifestations of belief. Arbitrary acts of compliance, such as baptism, confession, communion, sacraments, endowments, and so on, are meant to show an all-knowing god that you really mean it--that you really do super-duper believe.

The question becomes, "since many mentally disabled people do not fully understand the meaning behind religious ceremonies, or are incapable of understanding what a god even is, are they required to go through these rites of passage in order to make it into heaven?"

I first encountered this question while on my mission, when a middle aged woman requested that her mentally retarded 20 year old son be baptized. As missionaries, we looked forward to any baptism. Even so, it seemed unnecessary to baptize a grown man with the mind of a five year old. Surely god would allow him into heaven based on his condition, which surely god had imposed on him in the first place.

A few years ago autism was reclassified and broadened to a spectrum disorder, which allows for gradation of symptoms and severity of the condition. Still, there are many things which are in common of autistics as a whole. For instance, autistics tend to be analytically minded, and black and white in their thinking. This makes nuanced social and moral situations difficult for them to process. Because of these attributes, autism is especially interesting when discussing the salvation of the mentally challenged.

A Mormon associate of mine has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him Peter) who told his mother that he doesn't want to go to church anymore because he hasn't seen any evidence for Jesus. In contrast, a Mormon relative of mine also has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him John) who loves going to church and often makes decisions concerning social interactions based on lessons he has learned at church. Peter is very independent—almost to a fault—and John depends greatly on his parents and younger brother for guidance.

When Peter's mother told me about his decision to stop going to church, several people in our group reassured her that "he will come around." In Mormonism this means that at some point Peter will have a spiritual experience, or a "burning in his bosom," which Mormons believe is a sign that god is talking to them.

This burning sensation, as far as my ex-Mormon mind can understand, is no different than a "burning" desire for a proposition to be true. Meaning, Mormons believe that because they "have a good feeling" about Mormonism, this means that Mormonism is true. But to me, this is hardly a sound reason to assume the supernatural.

Based on other encounters Peter's mother has shared with me, I don't see Peter "coming around" to Mormonism solely based on feelings. Mormons will likely dismiss his unbelief as a symptom of his mental state, and claim that god will (probably) forgive him accordingly. This makes heaven a consolation prize for those inconvenienced by god's extra-strength cruelty in this life, leaving those who only experience god's regular-strength cruelty to fend for themselves.

If god can so easily forgive a mentally disabled person predisposed to unbelief, why can't he do the same for the rest of us unbelievers? Why is belief in something for which there is no evidence so important for our eternal salvation? What kind of plan is this?

John, on the other hand, has come to rely on church lessons for moral context and pro-social behavior. Mormonism has become his “Rosetta Stone” into social interactions. He is one of the few people I have met who really values and thinks about phrases like "What Would Jesus Do?"

John will likely remain in Mormonism as an adult because he has developed a comfortable routine out of it--another attribute of many autistics. Mormonism helps him understand right and wrong. I have discussed in other posts how difficult it is for many people who have based their moral standard on a belief in god to reconsider their morality after realizing god doesn't exist. For an autistic person who has made religion a social barometer and a routine, this becomes exponentially more challenging.

It will be interesting to see how John turns out, especially considering his affinity for science and space exploration. I wonder how his mind will process a potential faith crisis after, say, praying for someone to get well and waiting in vain for a response from god. After all, the scriptures are clear in the chain of events: pray in faith for something righteous and god will grant it. Will he so easily accept the inconsistent ad hoc rationalizations offered by believers for god's apparent negligence? I can't say. I hope that if that day comes, he finds a secular worldview to be just as useful in determining his morals and social behavior.

BONUS MATERIAL:





South Park weighing in on the subject:

ONWARD CHRISTIAN A--HOLES

Because "atheism" simply means that one lacks a belief in god, many people are quick to point out that an atheist does not have to be liberal on social issues, such as gay rights and women's reproductive rights. While technically true, many atheists find themselves leaning left, as it were, in politics. In many ways, the justifications used by conservatives for their political positions are rooted in religious values. When a person loses their faith, often times their conservatism is next to go.

This is one reason the "culture wars" in America appear to be religious. I suppose to a certain extent it is, but there is nothing about atheism which would necessarily drive a person to liberalism. Progressive politics seem to be a byproduct of an absence of religious conservatism.

At present, we are staring down the barrel of two social collisions. First, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage--which many conservatives are calling an illegal overreach of a few agenda-driven judges--we have the self-made martyr Kim Davis, who continues to defy a federal judge by refusing to do her job as a county clerk in Kentucky. As she sees it, she should not be forced by the Supreme Court to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because doing so would be against her deeply held religious beliefs.

I suppose she would also have no problem if a Muslim who worked at a grocery store refused to sell her pork, or a Mormon who worked at a liquor store refused to sell her alcohol, or a Jehovah's Witness doctor refused to give her a life-saving blood transfusion. Surely, she would respect their religious beliefs...

I can respect her decision to not want to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. I am pro-freedom and choice. She should not be forced to do it. But, given that it is now a part of her job as mandated by the Supreme Court, if she cannot perform this part of her job as a public servant then she should resign. This is exactly what I would do if I felt that my boss required me to do something immoral or contrary to my belief system. I would quit.

The reason Ms. Davis refuses to quit is because she wants to be made a martyr. Unfortunately for her, the fate of most martyrs usually ends very, very badly. Her fate, somewhat surprisingly to me, is that she is being held in contempt of court and on Thursday of last week she went to prison.

After sending Kim to prison, the court ordered her immediate subordinates to sign the marriage licenses. Because they followed the court order, presumably out of fear of also being sent to prison, the court released Davis yesterday (Tuesday). So, she basically missed a holiday weekend in defense of her religious beliefs (just like Jesus!). Davis has yet to say whether she intends to comply with court orders, but the court made it clear that should she continue her defiance, she will return to prison.

After a paltry five days in prison (small potatoes for a truly committed martyr), Davis has milked some old fashioned self-righteous sympathy from conservatives. Some have speculated that Davis will resign only to be picked up by one of the frontrunner GOP presidential candidates and go on a speaking circuit to defend religious liberty. A likely candidate is Mike Huckabee, himself a narrow minded preacher eager to play the victim card, who stood by Kim's side during a rally immediately after her release. During this tour de farce, Davis, who is now on her fourth "traditional marriage," will make some money by pandering to the homophobia of the poor oppressed Christian majority. This is a similar plot to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in 2008.

The second social collision is much less comical than a butt-hurt bigot sending herself to prison in order to make money off of other bigots. This issue has more dire consequences, and in some cases, it is a matter of life and death.

For years, conservatives have claimed that 50 million babies have been aborted in America since Roe v Wade. This statistic, the accuracy of which is suspect, is meant to draw up emotion against abortion. It is true that abortion can be emotionally taxing, but this has nothing to do with the legality of it. Besides, the vast majority of women who have had an abortion maintain that it was the right choice for them, even years later.

Abortions will continue to happen because women will always seek bodily autonomy, no matter what fallacious arguments narrow minded politicians and theocrats use to try to strip women of that right. Legalized abortion means that women who seek it will have better healthcare during the procedure.

The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions in America is through comprehensive sex education and access to contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies will occur if people can control with greater accuracy when they get pregnant. This "no brainer," however, seems lost among the more fundamentalist religious sects, many of whom have been stirred into a frenzy by a recent "exposé" on Planned Parenthood, a non-profit whose primary purpose is comprehensive sex education and access to contraception and healthcare.

In this "leaked" video, an undercover Christian Soldier talks to a leader of Planned Parenthood on how they, too, can make money selling aborted baby parts. At first glance, this is horrific. It's mad scientist stuff. But, scratching beneath the shallowest of surfaces one comes to find that what is actually being discussed is giving an aborted fetus to a science lab for study. The only money Planned Parenthood gets during such a transaction is reimbursement for transportation costs, which is on the order of about $75.

The ripple effect of this video has caused several politicians--including governors--to push for the revocation of government funding of Planned Parenthood. Several states have effectively done so already. Here is the problem: only 3% of Planned Parenthood's dealings involve abortion. This means that the other 97% of their services will be crippled because of a political knee-jerking.

Some of their other services include free healthcare to the poor, educational materials on reproductive health, and free screenings for STDs. Much of what they do helps poor people who can't afford these services any other way and young people who are too scared to seek these services through their parents because of religious judgments. When one goes through Planned Parenthood for a given service, one is told how much the subsidized service costs (which is usually much cheaper than comparable sources), and one is informed that should the cost be too high, they can pay as much as they want. This means that people can get these services FOR FREE.

I can't see how anyone could oppose this system. Even those who want abortion to be illegal should be in favor of such accessible healthcare services and education, access to which has been shown time and time again to reduce abortions in a given area. Seriously, education trumps ignorance every time. When women have control of their own bodies, STDs and abortions drop and poverty levels improve. Abstinence only sex education is not education--it is religiously motivated ignorance. And when has that tactic ever benefitted society?

And to think that self-righteous Christian a--holes want to take this beneficial program away from those in need because of a misrepresentative, highly edited propaganda video from a group of ignorant sycophantic idealists with no concept of pluralism, freedom or education, who wish to lasso the rest of civilized society into the sand trap of outdated Christian morals. To these self-righteous opportunists, I have one last thing to say: it is a pity there isn't a hell for you to go to, you sanctimonious cunts.

BONUS MATERIAL:





The Young Turks on the Planned Parenthood video:

TEACH ME HOW TO DUGGAR

"There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

At times the phrase "methinks thou dost protest too much" doesn't even scratch the surface of a person's hypocrisy. At times one's hypocrisy is so massive and throbbing that it drips into the realm of comedic irony: it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. This seems to especially be the case for religious idealists who seek to shove their subjective faith-based morals down the throats of other people, while simultaneously breaking the very moral code to which they wish to force others to ascribe. This is most distressing when shoved down the throats of children.

I have written about evangelical pastor Ted Haggard a few times. For years the Colorado Springs mega-church pastor railed against the "gay agenda" in very public ways, while flaunting the moral superiority of his particular sect of Christianity. His career as a preacher abruptly stopped when it was discovered that he had been regularly meeting with a gay prostitute to engage in gay sex and get high on meth (it was the gay prostitute who exposed Mr. Haggard in order to stop Teddy from further hurting the gay community).

Don't feel too bad for Pastor Ted, however. He went to a Christian counseling facility and through a few weeks of prayer has cured himself of his sinful gayness (surprise!). His wife even wrote a book about how she has forgiven him and their new ministry is stronger than ever (despite being significantly smaller). It seems that god truly does help those who receive direct financial contributions from gulli-believers.

Well, such painful and public irony has reared its ugly head among god's favorite sexually-repressed sect yet again. A few months ago it came to light that Josh Duggar, an "ex-reality TV star" known for TLC's "19 Kids and Counting" and a leading member of the Family Research Council (an anti-gay lobbying group with significant clout among credulous anti-science sheeple), had sexually abused several of his younger female siblings and at least one female friend when he was a teenager. The wake of the scandal nearly caused the network to cancel the show.

His parents, also victims of self-perpetuating sexual-repression, waited over a year to intervene. Their rationale was that they thought it was a phase and that he would stop as he matured. Fine. Honestly, I can't say that I would immediately jump to criminal charges against my own child either. However, the thing which really boils my noodle is that when Josh's parents did decide to intervene they did not go to a licensed therapist or to an accredited treatment facility run by doctors, but to a Christian prayer-based rehabilitation program run by preachers. 

As an aside, the director of this program also fits the category of "sanctimonious hypocrite" since his conviction for child pornography and pedophilia.

Josh has been set up to fail from the start. His parents are part of the "quiver full" movement, which approaches childbearing like an all-you-can-eat buffet. Their take on sex education is that abstinence is not merely the best option, but the only option. Education about reproductive health, contraception, and family planning are all schemes from the devil to thwart god's plan (as if any thwarting of a plan devised by an omnipotent and omniscient being is even possible...). Any mention of STD's should be made only as a scare tactic to encourage abstinence.

Furthermore, one should not engage in any sexual activity until marriage--an ideal most assured through ignorance--and once in a life-bound commitment with someone equally ignorant, one should not use any contraception at all to ensure the most babies possible being born into this lifestyle of perpetuated ignorance.

With all of these cards so neatly stacked against Josh, is it any wonder that, in his ignorance about sex, he acted out sexually?

I heard a podcast a while back where it was mentioned by a social worker or therapist of some kind that in their professional experience there are two types of people who grow up to be sexual aggressors and abusers. The first is victims of abuse. This is fairly self-explanatory. Victims perpetuate a cycle of abuse because this is what they were taught.

The second type of abuser is one which has been sexually repressed and their only reference for sex is the bible. Think about this. Think about the implications of only learning about sex from the bible. King Solomon's sonnets about tower shaped boobs are only the tip of a rather perky biblical ice berg.

Remember the story of Lot? Remember when he threw his virgin daughters to a mob of horny men so they wouldn't rape his angelic guests? Remember when his daughters got him drunk so he would get them pregnant? All of the concubines, the sex slaves, the incest, the virgin girls given to warriors as a prize for conquest, the mosaic laws favoring the rights of rapists over the rights of women--all of it paints a picture of that women are less than men, and that sex is a form of control and a symbol of power.

If this is the only place a young Christian boy learns of sex, his sexual acting out, although reprehensible and scary, becomes understandable. Young boys (and girls, for that matter) who are born in to this unrealistic and repressive lifestyle do not really stand a chance at becoming healthy functioning adults. They are victims.

This is why it is a bittersweet experience for me to learn that Josh Duggar--a leading member of a political organization which seeks to legislate their own warped view of morality on to our children--has been found to have multiple accounts on the Ashley Madison website (a website which allows paying customers to seek out extramarital affairs). On the one hand, I revel in the irony. People like the Duggars have more political power than they deserve and do more harm than good with their anti-science idealism. Their hypocrisy deserves to be exposed, if for no other reason than to sap them of their influence.

On the other hand, Josh is a victim of circumstance. He had no choice but become a pretentious hypocritical sexually confused bigot. He was given no proper education about his sexuality and had no sexual outlets. When his hormones began to rage and he had no healthy way to process or contextualize his budding libido--not to mention the changes happening to his sisters and female friends--he lashed out in his confusion. I honestly think that he had no idea what he was doing.

But he is an adult now. He should know better. He should have been educated and sent to a therapeutic facility to learn how to manage his sexual urges appropriately, but his parents failed him. He is now lobbying against the rights of others because he was mistakenly taught by his ultra-conservative politician father that this is behavior becoming of a decent person.

And to think that Josh's parents are now in the process of pitching a new cash-cow TV show to "The Learning Channel" in which they, the creators of the monstrous hypocritical mess of a man that is Josh Duggar, will advise others on matters of sex and relationships. I have no punch line. These people terrify me. My only solace is that TLC has not accepted their offer. 

FSM help us. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Roy Zimmerman singing about Ted Haggard:

I DISSENT

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."

--Chapman Cohen

It seems that I am not the only person having fun arguing with religious people on Facebook. A friend of mine, who has also left Mormonism, recently posted his thoughts on the current debacle between the Mormon Church and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the fallout of which has devout Mormons squirming.

For years the BSA has been wrestling with its policies which discriminate against gays. Some revisions came down the pike a year or so ago, thus allowing openly gays kids to participate in the program without being kicked out. This caused a bit of a stir among Mormons at the time, but now, apparently, they are claiming that they were in support of this revision all along. I have some gay ex-Mormon friends who might challenge this claim...

At any rate, the question now is whether or not openly gay men can be leaders in the organization. In typical religious fashion--standing in opposition to facts and reason--Mormons are upset that the BSA has recently reversed their outdated discriminatory policy, which will allow gay men to be scout leaders.

Their objection, which they hold to be doctrinal, and therefore, a form of religious liberty, is that it is inappropriate for gay men to be leaders of youth groups. Apparently Mormons still think that gays try to "recruit" teens and that homosexuality is closely linked to pedophilia--both of these misconceptions are dispelled by science.

As my friend points out, Mormons have no problem with straight men overseeing Girl's Camp (the lesser-funded female version of Scout Camp). Nor do they object that these same men ask male and female teens--behind closed doors--intimate questions about their sex lives. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Although I have huge problems with religious-based bigotry, I do agree that the Mormon Church has the right to exclude gays from their organization (for the same reasons that the KKK can refuse to allow black people in their group). Unfortunately for Mormons, however, the BSA is not justified in their discrimination since they are a multicultural organization which receives government kickbacks, and financial stipends.

For instance, the BSA is allowed free access to hundreds of military personnel and millions of dollars of equipment--paid for with tax dollars--for their annual national jamboree. Also, many of the Boy Scout facilities and camps are on government-owned property and the BSA is charged a lowly $1 a year for rent.

These are major perks which other youth programs and nonprofits are not afforded by the government. This kind of support is the reason so many people are calling for a revision in the BSA's discriminatory policies. The Mormon Church is free to discriminate, but the government is not.

In response to all the hubbaballoo, the Mormon Church has issued a statement that, should the BSA go through with this change (allowing gay Scout leaders), then the Church will withdraw from the BSA and start their own scouting program. This will be a major blow to the BSA since the Mormon Church is their single largest supporter (approximately 25-30% of all scout troops are Mormon-run). This has been one major reason why the BSA has been so reluctant to change their policy.

The magnitude of the Mormon-BSA relationship is precisely what the Mormon Church relies upon when making the threat to withdraw from the BSA. Mormons are known for many things (some less favorable than others), one of which is sticking with their principles. They are also known for managing money well.

Should the Mormon Church withdraw all support and sever all ties with the BSA (a relationship about 100 years old, by the way), then whatever scouting substitute the Church devises will NOT receive the same government support as the BSA. This means that Mormons will spend significantly more money to run their scouting program.

It is because of this unavoidable monetary spike that I think the Mormon Church is bluffing. I think they will not pull the trigger on their threats of disassociation. I think they are trying to create a power play to strong-arm the BSA. Should the BSA go through with their policy change, I strongly doubt the Mormon Church will make good on their promise to withdraw--the financial stakes are too high. But, only time will tell.

In the post my ex-Mormon friend wrote on his Facebook page he mentioned that he had left the Church. And from out of the woodwork crawled some of his devout Mormon friends, hellbent on defending Mormonism and, if possible, saving my friend in the process.

One Mormon devotee wrote an especially pretentious and closed-minded response to my friend, [N]:

Sam:

"I know that somewhere deep down inside of you, [N], that you remember why you "used" to believe. I know that you remember feelings and promptings that you had, I remember perfectly hearing you talk about them. I remember listening to you testify of the very things that you try to tear down with logic. I know that you know, however buried that may be by emotions, pain, or whatever else it could be that God does exist. The bottom line is something convinced you that there was a God and that everything you taught as a missionary was true. You had a testimony and still do. If you choose to bury those memories than that is fine. But just as you desire to point out your opinion so do I. I cannot deny the very real feelings that I have had in my life. The confirmations that there is a God and he loves us. No matter what information someone provides. I will always know. I love you [N], and I hope that you know that I always have your best interest in mind."

I have never heard a more condescending, presumptive, or closed-minded testimony. Not only does this person claim to "know" that there is a god and that my unbelieving friend likewise "knows" this, but this person states that "No matter what information someone provides," he will always know that god exists.

This is the definition of closed-minded. But in Mormon culture this phrasing is seen as admirably strong conviction. Too bad he doesn't support his claim that his super strong feelings are indicative of god. Too bad no one ever has.

Another Mormon friend of my friend wrote a rather wordy response, so I won't post it here. In his word-salad, he made an interesting point I have not heard in a while. He related the struggle for gay rights to the 1978 change which allowed black Mormons to attain the priesthood.

He said that a possible reason why blacks were not allowed to have the priesthood before 1978 is because members were not yet ready for such a drastic change. To him this is more plausible than the common criticism that the Church only made the change because of societal pressures, as they seem to have done on the issue of polygamy (polygamy was endorsed by the Church for decades; it was not until the Mormons sought to make Utah a state that they abolished the practice; also, the US government threatened to confiscate millions of dollars of Mormon assets should they continue polygamy, much like they currently threaten Fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy). 

The idea that Mormons were "not ready" to allow blacks to have the priesthood before 1978 does not speak favorably of Mormons at the time. The civil rights movement picked up a lot of steam in the 50s and 60s. What does it say about Mormons if they were behind the times by over a decade? Now that gay marriage is legal, how long will it take for the Church to catch up and once again claim moral superiority and exclusive access to divine revelation and prophecy?

Aron Ra was right; god moves in mysterious and delirious ways...

BONUS MATERIAL:

Coheed and Cambria performing Supreme Court Justice Scalia's "dissent" on gay marriage: