A Christian Nation My Big White

I've been reading Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's Father Time, which is a companion volume to her two books Mother Nature and Mothers and Others. Hrdy is a biological anthropologist who looks at parenting, including alloparenting. Specifically, she looks at how human evolution was shaped by our need to first produce and then keep alive fat little expensive babies, which have to be carted about for two or three years and then provisioned for ten or fifteen more years.

That's a huge investment in calories and time, and if we're going to compete as a species, we need to produce, and keep alive, three or four children per woman. Hrdy's overall thesis is that this is impossible without the help of alloparents (which is to say, people besides the parents who are willing to invest time in and to provide calories for the babies). In this new book, Father Time, Hrdy repeats that thesis, but looks more specifically at fathers, and at men, and at how being around babies shapes human males. She also looks briefly at the effect not being around babies has on human males. She's talking about the biological effects -- brain growth, hormones, that kind of thing -- as well as the cultural effects.

This is a fascinating book, and I encourage everyone to read it. Among other things, Hrdy looks at how our current generation of fathers and men have changed and are changing; she talks about how grandparents and fictive kin are encouraged in various societies to help provision and care for children; and she looks at what happens when a society focuses on the rights and honor of men and the ability of men to control women, rather than on those babies and the need to care for them and keep them alive.

Which brings me to my secondary point -- the "Pro-Life" "Christian" culture which our current "conservatives" keep claiming as their own.

Oddly, this culture has very little to say about caring for or feeding children, except that parents should not expect anyone to help them feed or take care of those children. Its "pro-life" aspect, as we all have seen, is focused entirely on forcing people to continue pregnancies against their will. That's got almost nothing to do with babies and almost everything to do with controlling women (and people the GOP defines as women).

Our current GOP and "conservative" culture are focused -- well, they're focused on wealth concentration and capitalism, obvious, capitalism being their true religion. 

But the "tradwife" movement and the "pro-life" movement and the push to remake the US into a Christian nation, ruled by the laws of a very few sects of Christianity -- those are all about control of people the GOP considers inferior, which is to say women, immigrants, poor people, and LGBTQ people.

You can tell because none of what they are trying to force the rest of us to accept has anything to do with provisioning people or helping families. You can also tell by the lies they tell and the laws they want to impose on us, all of which are about control, and none of which are about helping their fellow citizens.

Haitians are eating dogs and cats? That's about trying to control brown people, poor people, and immigrants, by bearing false witness, by the way, which is one of those ten commandments they idolize.

Democrats want to make it legal to kill newborn babies? That's about controlling the bodies and fertility of those inferiors.

Democrats are coming for your guns? The right of (certain) men to control others through violence shall not be infringed.

The things Christ actually said, which have to do with wealth redistribution, feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, and staying with and taking care of the family (which is why Christ forbids divorce), those are things our current "conservatives" not only ignore but actively treat as anathema. You should see my local FB page when they talk about beggars. It's not at all Christlike, that's all I have to say.

Christ, by the way, had nothing at all to say about gay people, or trans people, or abortion, for that matter. The only thing he had to say about violating sexual taboos has to do with not throwing stones. Our current conservatives do nothing BUT throw stones. 

They don't want Christianity. They want control. They're the Christian version of the Taliban, and everyone who looks at them can see it.

Scamming People for Jesus

Over at Patheos some time back, Libby Anne wrote about a tactic young Evangelicals use -- are taught to use -- which is quite similar to one con men use, not surprisingly.

They find an "in," some area of commonality between them and the 'target,' as Evangelicals call it (or 'mark,' to be more honest about what they're looking for).

In other words, they're looking for common human ground between them and their mark, something they can play on. Once they find this common human ground, they exploit it.

This has happened to my kid, up in Fayetteville, more than once now. My kid is very sweet, with a lot of empathy. They also look gay -- so gay. (Dyed bright purple hair, plaid denim jacket, no makeup.) Invariably a pretty little Evangelical Christian child will sit down next to them and say, in friendly voice, "I like your hair!"

Among the LGBT kids, this is code for, I'm queer, are you queer too?

So my kid responds with a friendly, "Thank you!"

And the Evangelical Christian does some friendly chat, just as if she actually likes the kid, and actually wants to be friends with the kid. And the kid is thinking, aw, I've found a friend, a queer friend, this is nice.

And then the Evangelical asks if the kid wants to come learn about Jesus.

And now my Kid feels stupid, like they're an idiot for thinking anyone would actually want to talk to them, or be friends with them. This Evangelical has made it very clear that the only reason anyone would sit down next to them is in order to run a scam on them -- to lie to them, to cheat them, to con them.

Because they're broken, obviously.

Because they're something that needs to be fixed.

Is this what Evangelicals think their God wants them to do to people? That's what Jesus commands them to do?  Lie to people? Treat them like marks to be cheated and conned into their churches? Make them feel like fools and idiots for trusting people?

I hope one day these people grow up and never stop cringing at how they treated their fellow human beings.


UPDATE: Just to make it clear, I don't blame this little Evangelical child. She's been sent out by someone -- likely someone as brainwashed as herself -- and told to do this horrible thing to her fellow human beings. She's been given a script to follow. She's been told she has to do this, or these poor LGBT sinners will burn in hell. So no. I don't blame her. It is still an evil thing to do, and it is an evil thing to teach her to do. There is a reason bearing false witness is a sin.

Wait, what? Raptors?

My kid is very edgy about this whole rapture thing, even though I keep telling her it's ridiculous.

OTOH, a couple of my students, even though they live in Arkansas (rapture central) have never heard of the idea of the rapture.

So here's a link! In case you care. Everything you wanted to know about the Rapture.

Which, as I keep telling my panicked child, is a totally invented piece of bullshit.

(Yeah, like other bits of religion aren't, I know. I am just more exasperated with this one because of how much it's scaring my kid. What a tool this guy Harold Camping is. Makes me wish for an actual God just so he would have to account to him someday.)

Fun fact! Rapture and rape come from the same Latin root! Rapio, rapere: to seize or to snatch away, to take for your own.

Two-Fifths of Americans Think the World Is Made of Air

Every time I mention evolution in class -- which I don't do that often, but it does come up, usually when I'm teaching WLIT and we hit the 19th century -- I get students, like the students I mentioned in my previous post, who just shut down.

They know evolution is a lie.  

Now they haven't studied evolution, mind you.  It wasn't covered in their science classes, neither the home-schooled students and usually not the public school students either.  What was covered, if anything was, was *why* evolution was wrong, and how to explain to their lying liberal professors that evolution was wrong, and the mistakes Darwin made.  What they know for certain is that evolution can't be true, because if it is true, then the Bible is a lie.

And this, at the root of everything, is why they can't ever really believe anything their professors tell them.

They know we know evolution is real.  Since we know that, we must hate God.  Since we hate God, we're filled with the enemy (SATAN!!).  Since we're filled with Satan, ergo ipso fact QED, we're after their souls.

How are we to get them to learn algebra, then?  Or the best way to construct an essay?  Or what the Corn Laws have to do with Victorian literature?  Or why it matters that they read the actual novel and not just Sparks Notes?

Never mind why they should study what the text says about evolution.

Contrast that attitude with this story.

You'll see why I'm depressed.

Movie Review

I just watched Lord, Save Us From Your Followers on Netflix.  Worth watching.  The narrator is an Evangelical Xtian, but he's one of the good ones, and it's an honest & interesting look at the Religious-Cultural wars in America today.  (My favorite bit is a mock-game show where the Young Conservatives don't know anything about Liberal Elites, while the Liberal Elites wipe the floor with the Young Conservatives -- it's that cultural bubble they're kept in, yikes.)

Anyway, three parts funny, two parts appalling, five parts deeply interesting.  Have a look.

Sing It

This is a post I wish I could get into the fists of every one of my first-year students -- especially the women, of course, but the men too, to some extent.

It's Amanda over at Pandagon, on that Red Families/Blue Families book, among other issues: specifically, on that divided way those of us who are Blue and those of us who are Red approach the notion of sex and marriage.

Red state families raise their kids (and especially their women) to believe if they aren't married they aren't anything.  I see this with my women students all the time.  Nineteen years old, twenty years old, twenty-two years old, smart as any student I have taught anywhere, smart enough they need to be thinking of getting their Ph.D. somewhere, and -- well, they've got two kids already, or sometimes three; or they're on their second or third marriage.  "I can't leave Fort Smith," they tell me.  "Eddie's job is here."

Or, if by some blind, blissful stroke of fate they have managed not to marry?  They are wracked with guilt.  They feel like horrible failures.  What is wrong with me, they moan, that I can't get married?  I tell them, when they ask (I tried to stay out of it if they don't ask, though it is FUCKING HARD) that they should not even be thinking about marriage until they're 28 or 30, until they have their Ph.D. I say, but then I relent and say, okay, until you have your masters.

Better no man than the wrong man, I tell them.  What are you thinking?

They look at me like I am speaking French.

Blue state families raise their kids (this is the book, it's research now, not me, though in my experience it is true) to get the education, to put the education and the life's work first.  Once you have that, then you can look to whatever relationship you might want to get involved with. I know that's how we're raising our kid.  I've explained to her (only when she asks, mind you) about sex, what it is, how it works, what sort of partner she wants to avoid doing it with, what kind of partner she'll want to seek when she's ready; and every lesson ends with a diatribe about contraception:  "And if you do decide to start doing sex," I always say, "WHAT are you going to do?"

She rolls her eyes.  "Mom, I'm twelve!"

"I said WHAT are you going to do?"

"Use condoms, use protection, I know, I know.  Geez."

Whereas, she tells me, the Red state kids at her school aren't even allowed to speak the word sex.  "How do they know what to do about it then?" I asked her.  "What if someone tries something on them?"

But I guess that will never happen to a bride of Jesus.

Smut for Smut!

Via Joe.My.God., Atheist students in Texas are offering one kind of viciously offensive text for another: you give us any one of your various religious crap texts, they say, and we'll give you a pornographic text of your choice. How about it?

The Christians, of course, take the bait and erupt in flames. It's mildly amusing to watch.

Yow.

I heard about the Daily Kos poll awhile back, but somehow I miss this bit.  Here's Republicans on whether contraception -- not abortion, mind you, not the Morning-After Pill, but plain, flat, contraception, as in the Pill and the condom and such as that -- should be made illegal.  And yes, you're reading that right.  31% say yes.

QUESTION: Should contraceptive use be outlawed?

	YES	NO	NOT SURE
All	31	56	13
Men	32	54	14
Women	30	58	12
White	32	55	13
Other/Ref	22	64	14
18-29	27	64	9
30-44	29	60	11
45-59	31	56	13
60+	33	53	14
NE	27	60	13
South	34	53	13
MW	29	55	16
West	29	59	12
Def	32	55	13
Vote	31	56	13
Not Like	30	58	12
Def Not	29	59	12
Not Sure	28	59	13

My Momma She's An Atheist...

So I'm talking to the kid the other night, and I point out that you know, technically, according to Xtian's own rules, Jesus is illegitimate, and --

What? she demands.

Well, God never married Mary, did he? So--

Mom, STOP!

Which isn't really as bad as the whole adultry thing, I added, thoughtfully, since, under the rules of the time, Joseph being betrothed to Mary, that's the same as being married, and God's slipping around with someone else's wife, so--

MOM! You're giving me all these moral dirtclods, and you KNOW I can't throw them!

(I have forbidden her to raise these issues with teh Xtians at her school.)

Which makes this really unkind of me. But I have to show her this article:

Adam's Family Jewels.

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and He took the bone of Adam’s penis and made him a woman.”

Er, wait, wasn’t it from one of Adam’s ribs that Eve was created?

Not according to Ziony Zevit. A professor of Semitic languages at the American Jewish University in Los Angeles Zevit posits that the Hebrew word tsela (literally “side,” but traditionally translated as “rib”) employed in Genesis refers in fact to Adam’s member.

It cracks me up.

Is that a peanut in your Snickers bar?

Or could it be Satan?

Jeezly pop.  Just when you thought the Christers couldn't get anymore whack.

During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure ... During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

What?

Over at P.Z.'s place, he's got a post up about the -- I don't know what I'd call them: advertisements sort of sounds wrong to me, but okay, we'll call them that: ads for atheism being runs in NY city subways.

The post isn't really about the ads, which are fairly non-controversial (Put up by the Coalition for Reason, all they say is A Million New Yorkers are Good Without God -- Are you?).  It's about that, oh, how shall we phrase this?  That miseducated, overpaid Fox-news Republican-Welfare recipient, Sean Hannity, who, having heard about these ads -- I'm guessing someone sent him a link -- hopped around on TV fulminating, "Can you imagine?  What if some Christian group ran pro-God ads in the subways?  Can you imagine the outrage?"

Dude.

Apparently Sean has been living in a cave, I would respond, except, well, he and his ilk are always responding this way, aren't they?  Almost everything they say makes it clear they don't live in the same reality as the rest of us.  They live on planet Wing-Nut, Planet Xtian Loon-O-Sphere, where Obama is trying to take their guns, where there really is a War on Christmas (despite the huge decorations being put up in my public park as we speak, and the aisles and aisles full of Christmas crap that has been for sale in every store in Fuck Smith for a good week already), where White Christian Males are the truly persecuted people in America, where those huge signs on I-40 (COME ON OVER TO MY HOUSE BEFORE THE BIG GAME THIS SUNDAY -- GOD) do not exist and where, as PZ points out, the hundreds of different sects of Xtian advertising in the subways and every other public space -- why, not allowed!  Just like no little Xtian boy or girl is allowed to pray over his school lunch or read the Bible at school!  Because of the evil Lie-brals!  Because we're the ones who hate!  We're the ones who are truly intolerant!  Not them!

Gah.

Totally Not Racist

This is...I don't even know what to say about this.

It's a text that gets used in Christian schools, though. I'm betting it's one that gets used around here. It would explain the odd resistance I get in my classes when I teach Frederick Douglass and the WPA Slave Narratives -- always, always two or three of my students will want to argue with me, insisting that "slavery wasn't really like that," or tell me how most slaves were actually well-treated by their masters.

Here's my favorite paragraph so far.

Some whippings were severe. In other instances, whipping was as mildly applied as the corporal punishment normally practiced within families today.21 Although some masters were brutal, even sadistic, most were not. The Slave Narratives are overwhelmingly favorable in the judgment of masters as "good men." In fact in the Narratives, out of 331 references to masters, 86% refer to their masters as "good" or "kind." Quite a few would not allow whipping at all, and many only allowed it in their presence.

The "Slave Narratives" being referred to here are the WPA Slave narratives, the same ones I use in my class, and I am here to tell you those numbers are bogus. First, far more than 331 slaves mention their masters -- there are over 2300 narratives in the collection, and as I recall nearly every one I read mentioned their master, usually multiple times; and I've read hundreds. Several of the ones I read did, in fact, claim to have kind masters but first, as both Charles Darwin and Frederick Douglas point out, that doesn't mean anything when a black person is talking to the man; and (b) it wasn't anywhere near 86% of the narratives I read claiming such a thing. Maybe 3%. If that.

But this paragraph is also adorable:

This points to the need for Christians to learn the biblical way of avoiding "problem texts." This is the way of a priori submission. Christians must recognize that they are under the authority of God, and they may not develop their ideas of what is "right" and "fair" apart from the Word of God. And when the Bible is our only standard of right and wrong, problem texts disappear. This entire issue of slavery is a wonderful issue upon which to practice. Our humanistic and democratic culture regards slavery in itself as a monstrous evil, and it acts as though this were self-evidently true. The Bible permits Christians to own slaves, provided they are treated well. You are a Christian. Whom do you believe?

As far as I can tell, the main arguements made by these tools is that they must argue the pro-slavery position because (a) slavery is in the Bible and the Bible is God's word; (b) if they admit slavery is bad then them evil librals can say homosexuality and feminism are okay too, since not everything in the Bible is true if even one thing isn't true; and (c) atheists are the real pro-slavery demons (what?) because no atheist has any real reason to oppose slavery -- after all, what true ethical reason can an atheist give for being opposed to slavery? He doesn't believe in a God to tell him slavery is wrong! (Did I say what already?)(No, seriously, that's what passes for logic on Planet I'm a Christian Reconstructionist.

Moral Dirt Clods

This Post over at Crooked Timber, which is about directing your kids' reading, whether you should or can direct your kids' reading, how you get your kids to read, etc, is an interesting one.

We never much directed the Kid's reading -- well, we read, all the time, non-stop, of course: mr. delagar and I are generally reading 2-5 books apiece at any given time (I'm reading Joe Haldeman's Worlds Apart, Kit Whitfield's new book, In Deep Waters, the biography of FDR, A Traitor to his Class, and a book by Anthony Burgess right now, called English Literature, which I am mainly reading for it's amusement value); and until she learned to read herself we read to her the same way.  Her bed, right now, is piled with books.

Lately, though, I have been reading the English Bible to her.

This is because one of her Xtian classmates had been urging her to read it, in class: when the Kid would browse the shelves of their school library, the little Xtian would say, "Why don't you read the Bible?  It's a Good Book!"  (Doing her special duty to convert the Jew, I expect.)

The Kid complained about this, at home.  I said she should take the other kid's advice, the Bible being the foundation of all Western Literature.  "Besides," I added.  "You're going to love what's in there."

So we're reading it, five or six or ten chapters a night, and boy does she.

"Now what now?" she says, when we hit some appalling bit.  "He did what?  Read that again."

She calls these moral dirt clods, and really, really wants to fling them at her classmate; but is nobly restraining herself, since she is a polite and civil child.

"Do you think Tillie knows this is in here?" she asked, about the bit where Lot offers to give up his virgin daughters to be raped by the mob.  "She says she's read the Bible."

"Most Christians," I said, "when they say they've read the Bible, mean they've read bits of it, given to them in church by their preachers.  Most of them have no idea what is in here."

She looked thoughtful, and interested.

"Anyway," I said.  "It's her business.  Leave her alone about it."

Just Asking

How sick do you have to be to think this is nifty?

Also, what kind of religion is it these folks are glomming onto?  My word.  That's some sick and twisted shit, right there.

I'll take column D, myself.

(Via Slacktivist.)

Yom Kippur

Last night began the last of the days of awe. We feasted on chicken, matzo ball soup, honeycake, and challah, in preparation for the big fast today, though no one actually fasts, since mr. delagar can't (he's diabetic) and the kid is still only 10, and I am a stone atheist. Today, mr. delagar and the kid are home considering their past year and the next to come. I ought to be, says mr. delagar. I remind him I am a stone atheist, and also have to get caught up in my classes, which I am days and days behind in due to this shoulder and this wicked Lyme's diease. He says Rabbi Hillel would not have given such spurious excuses.

This will give me something to regret next year, I tell him.

Oh Ye Infidel!

Had the first latkes of the season last night, and my were they good.

Have I mentioned I make the best latkes on the planet? Well, yes, I do. Here's my recipe for you who might want to emulate me, the latke artist:

Take two potatoes for everyone who wants latkes. I use Yukon Gold, but suit yourself.

Peel, wash, grate by hand -- that's essential, so step away from your evil food processor! Store the grated potato in a deep bowl of icy water while you're grating the rest of the potatoes; when you're done, drain in a colander, and then rinse the grated potato at least three or four times in freezing water, soaking it between times in more icy water. Swish about while it's soaking. What you're doing here is shaking loose the starch. Starch makes soggy latkes.

Finally, put the grated potato into the deep bowl, cover with icy water, cover the bowl with plastic wrap, and put in the fridge for awhile -- maybe an hour.

Drain, really well. Squeeze out as much water as you can.

Mix in some matzoh meal, some onion powder (if you don't have a kid who hates onion, you can grate in some onion here instead), some Kosher salt, some pepper, and two or three nice eggs.

(How much? Eh. A couple three handfuls of the matzoh, some of the rest. By nice eggs, I mean free range, of course. But suit yourself.)

Heat up some good-quality peanut oil in a big iron skillet. Get it hot, but not blazing. Enough so a bit of potato will pop and start to brown in a few seconds.

Form the latkes between your palms. Make them fairly flat. Squeeze out as much liquid as you can. Drop them in. Have some newspaper covered with paper towels ready for them to drain on. Have a beer or a Snakebit or some rum and coffee to drink while you work. Some friends to talk to -- that's also nice. Frying latkes takes time.

Eat with applesauce or sour cream if you're a traditional Jew. If you're an infidel like me and the kid, we have ketchup with ours. (mr. delagar threatens to make us move out every time we do this.)

Speaking of infidels, I reckon you caught Mitt's speech? The one where he says there's no religious test to be the U.S. President, but if there was it's okay cause he passes it, he believes in Jesus, not like them other guys over there (that would be us on the Left) who only believe in shit like freedom of religion?

Here's the bit of the speech I find most offensive:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

The NYTimes has this to say about it, which was noble and all, but did not go nearly far enough in my opinion (I did like one of the comments on the NYT piece, a guy who suggested that, rather than posting the 10 commandments in our public places, as the Right keeps yapping that we should, we should post the Bill of Right in all our public arenas -- maybe that would do our public discourse some good. <-- now that is an idea I can get behind, particularly after fifteen years of teaching Freshmen who think the Second Amendment was put in place so that they could go hunting, and haven't the slightest clue what the First Amendment's about.) But the NYT, stern as they were, did not go far enough. See C&L for a more thorough look.

Abstinence-Only Sex-Ed and The Right

Re my post on Wehner a few days back, see also this, from LG&M. It's a post on the recent small rise in teen pregnancy rate, which might well be connected to the Religious Right and its push not to allow sex education of any sort which doesn't teach kids to just say no.

Scott says:

The Heritage Foundation helpfully calls blaming abstinence only education for rising teen pregnancy rates "stupid" (they prefer to blame the women themselves). But it's not stupid. It doesn't take much to be able to see that there might - just might - be a connection between not teaching kids how to use a condom and a rising pregnancy rate.

He's got a nice chart and some links over there too.

So

I'm behind a big silver Hummer on the I-540 this morning, and he's got one of those Jesus fish stickers, and he's got one of those kneeling Calvins, piously peering up at a cross (picture Bill Watterson flipping him off), and he's got a red-white-and-blue I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS magnet, with its tail shaped into a tiny cross, and, in case we missed the fucking point, citizens, he's got a giant bumper sticker, not on his bumper, plastered across his cargo door, saying, in big black letters, I PRAY: GET USED TO IT.

From another bumper sticker, I can see he belongs to that fundamentalist mega church I mentioned in the previous post, but this is not my point.

Here is my point: I pray: get used to it?

Because, what?

This is some sort of rebel stance?

I know this is what Christians want to believe, that they are being persecuted in America these days, that they are the victims. That's what this War on Christmas meme of theirs is about, and the revisionist history about the founding fathers, and the fight to get ID taught in the public schools, and all the rest of it.

But please. When someone announces he is a Christian, do we kick the shit out of him in a bar? Do we refuse to employ him at our law firm? Is he not allowed to teach our fifth graders? Coach football?

My point is, the idea that we persecute people for being Christians in this country is a wetdream of the religious right, and one I frankly wish they would confine to the privacy of their own forums.