10.31.2013

Top 5 Scariest Christians in Film

Footloose

After generating a list of my top 10 most disturbing horror films, it occurred to me that it might be fun to do a different sort of list, one focusing on the scariest depictions of Christians in film. There are so many to choose from here, and it was particularly difficult to make my selections because some of the best depictions of fundamentalist Christians are not really scary, at least not in the horror sense. They are scary more because they remind us of people we know or used to know in real life. Anybody remember John Lithgow's performance as the dad in Footloose? I remember turning to my best friend in the theater and exchanging a knowing look because the character reminded us both of a mutual friend's father. Now, that was scary!

For this list, I decided to limit myself to the five of the scariest Christians I have seen on film and to think of the depictions that were truly frightening, disturbing, or unsettling in a general way and not simply because they reminded me of someone. On to the list!

10.30.2013

Childfree or Not

Children at N.Y. Zoo  (LOC)

As a middle aged guy with no children and someone who has never had any desire to have children, I sometimes use the "childfree" label to describe myself. I find it to be an accurate description along with all the other terms I might use to describe myself (e.g., atheist, freethinker, skeptic, aspirational humanist). So yes, I am childfree. At least, that is how I perceive myself.

What I didn't realize until fairly recently is that "childfree" is a label over which some people are quite protective. Evidently, not everyone without children and who does not intend to have children is supposed to use the label. Who knew?

After responding to a tweet from someone identifying herself as "childfree," I found myself in an exchange with someone I will call X that looked something like this:

Me: I know what you mean about being viewed as abnormal by some of those with kids and being excluded from lots of activities.
X: Yeah, it sucks. Are you childfree too?
Me: No kids and no interest in ever having them. In fact, I can't ever recall thinking that I might want kids someday.
X: When did you get snipped (vasectomy)?
Me: I haven't. I don't really have a reason to have that done at this point in my life.
X: Ha! Then you aren't childfree!
Me: I do not need a vasectomy because I am not sexually active. I'm not going to get someone pregnant by not having sex with them.
X: Still not childfree.
Me: If I don't have children and I'm not having sex, how am I not childfree?
X: You could still have them. You are not childfree.
Technically, she's right. I could still have children. I could also start believing in gods. Does that mean I should not be permitted to call myself an atheist either?

10.29.2013

How Can Atheists Not Believe?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I would venture a guess that nearly all atheists have at one time or another asked themselves some version of the following question: With all we have learned from science, how can so many people cling to ancient superstitions in this modern age? I have certainly asked the question many times as have most of the atheist bloggers I read (see a recent example from Dangerous Talk). As tempting as the question is to ask, I wonder if it may be the wrong question.

Why do so many people believe such ridiculous stories? Consider the fact that nearly everyone they trust believes the same things, including their families and friends. Also, think about the myriad ways in which the culture surrounding them promotes these stories. It is not merely a matter of a brief period of indoctrination; many people will be surrounded by these social pressures their entire lives. And the stories, no matter how absurd, seem to make many people feel good. These stories appear to be a source of comfort to many, and they may also foster a sense of community among those who believe them (i.e., shared values).

10.28.2013

Are You Ready for JesusWeen?

What are you doing this year for JesusWeen? Wait…what? You mean you aren't familiar with JesusWeen, the holiday celebrated every October 31st in the U.S.? Oh, you think October 31st is Halloween. No, that was before the fundamentalist Christians decided to co-opt it and turn it into JesusWeen. You see, they are terrified of Halloween and needed to Jesus it up a bit. So now we have JesusWeen. Yes, that's a real thing. I know how it sounds, but they are serious about it.

As Gawker noted in 2011,
Jesus Ween is not, in fact, a celebration of Jesus's ween, but rather "a non for Profit Organisation [sic] also known as JesusWin…focused on helping people live a better life."
Those participating in JesusWeen hand out Christian bibles instead of candy (or at least candy with bible verses printed on the wrappers). They do not allow their children to wear costumes. You know, because that would be evil.



If it is fun or feels good in some way, you can bet that fundamentalist Christians somewhere are trying to figure out how to stop people from doing it. Not only is Halloween fun, but many fundamentalist Christians have decided that it is genuinely evil. That means that those who participate in it are evil. You don't want to be evil, do you?

JesusWeen may be a relatively new phenomenon (it appears to have been born in 2011), but the sentiment underlying it is anything but new. I remember the fundamentalist Christian families not allowing their children to participate in Halloween as far back as grade school. They were a tiny minority back then where I was growing up on the West Coast. They are not so tiny here in Mississippi today. I am not even sure that they are a minority.

10.27.2013

Top 10 Most Disturbing Horror Films

With Halloween around the corner, I figured it would be fun to see if I could come up with a list of the top 10 most disturbing horror films I've seen. What do I mean by "disturbing" in this context? I'm thinking of films that made me uncomfortable and that I found myself unable to stop thinking about the next day.

Here is my list in no particular order:

  1. Session 9
  2. Eden Lake
  3. Antichrist (The Criterion Collection)
  4. The Strangers
  5. Martyrs
  6. Irreversible (read my brief review if you dare)
  7. Cache (Hidden)
  8. A Tale of Two Sisters
  9. Frontier(s): Unrated Director's Cut
  10. Infection

10.18.2013

This Skeptic Still Enjoys Horror Films

A screenshot of the 1922 film, Nosferatu. Thou...
A screenshot of the 1922 film, Nosferatu. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I have made no secret of my love for horror films. I look forward to October, in part, because a few of the cable stations play lots of horror flicks. I have heard a few skeptics say that they can no longer enjoy horror films now that they do not believe in ghosts, monsters, demons, etc. I have never had this problem, as I can willingly suspend disbelief for 90 minutes to enjoy a movie. This does not mean that I somehow will myself to believe in ghosts or demonic possession; it just means that I am able to mute the skeptical part of my mind for a while to enjoy what I'm watching. I doubt this makes me unique, as I suspect it is a common experience.

One of the things I've noticed this year when watching the few horror films I've had time to watch is that I can still enjoy many of them even when I do not mute my skepticism completely; I just enjoy them in a different way. I caught Paranormal Activity the other night. I saw it when it first came out but not again until now. When I watched it the first time, I muted my skepticism and enjoyed it a bit even though I did not find it particularly scary and felt somewhat let down by the marketing hype. I watched it this time without the skepticism muted so much and still found it entertaining. It was more funny than scary this time around, and while I realize that this probably was not what the filmmakers were aiming for, the point is that I was still able to enjoy it.

10.16.2013

The Prerequisites of Christian Belief Atheists Are Missing

Vasily Perov's painting illustrates clandestin...
Vasily Perov's painting illustrates clandestine meetings of Christians in pagan Kiev. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many of us, atheists and theists alike, understand that early childhood indoctrination is vitally important to sustaining world religions. Most people believe in the gods in which their parents believed and which their culture promoted. But not everyone grasps this. Some Christians, in fact, appear to overlook this and focus almost exclusively on the acquisition of religious beliefs later in life.

It also appears, at least according to some of these Christians, that we atheists do not worship the Christian god primarily because we have not met the prerequisites for Christian faith. That is, we have not had the sort of experiences that are required before we can become true Christians. Never mind that many of us were previously Christians before coming to our senses; this is deemed irrelevant, explained away by insisting that we were never really "true Christians," or simply ignored.

10.15.2013

Atheist Women and the Price of Speaking Out

"The witch no. 1" lithograph
"The witch no. 1" lithograph (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Strong, confident, self-assured women are certainly present in the atheist, skeptic, and secular communities. You can find them in prominent national leadership positions (e.g., serving as co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and executive director of the Secular Coalition for America), and you will find them running state organizations. They are writing exceptional books and popular blogs. They run blog networks, and they do valuable work as secular activists in their communities. You will find them sharing their art, and you will hear them on blog radio. You will encounter them in your local atheist, skeptic, and humanist groups, and you can follow them on Twitter and Facebook. "Where are the atheist/skeptic/secular women?" They are all around you.

Unfortunately, some atheist women do indeed pay a price for their willingness to express themselves. You see, there are people right here in the secular community who feel so threatened by the willingness of some of these intelligent, assertive, and courageous women to speak their minds that they have developed special insults with which to target them. They call them gender traitors, sister punishers, and chill girls. Yes, they actually accuse some of these women of betraying their gender because they dare to hold different opinions!

The tactics used against these women vary, but they are aggressive in nature and can generally be grouped under the label of intimidation. Some have been subjected to relentless rage blogging; others have had their careers threatened. A few have had their identities publicly revealed, and more have had their reputations assailed online. Many have been placed on block lists and labeled "abusers" and "harassers" for the imagined sin of speaking their minds.

Worst of all, much of this behavior has been carried out by women (and men) who claim to be feminists and advocates of social justice. Their versions of feminism and social justice appear to involve sustained efforts to smear the reputations of women who are willing to express disagreement with them. Many secular leaders seem determined to ignore this behavior or appease those engaging in it. This position seems unsustainable to those of us who value the many contributions of these women and hope to hear more from them.

10.14.2013

Do Not Deny Others the Opportunity to Learn From Their Mistakes

A temple
A temple (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"If you don't agree with someone's religion," they say, "you should still respect it and just keep your critical thoughts to yourself." That doesn't seem terribly fair to me. Why should they get to talk about their religion in my presence when I cannot? If it is okay for them to share their thoughts about it with me, it should be okay for me to do the same. Isn't a conversation supposed to involve more than one person speaking?

If someone says something stupid - I mean really stupid - and you don't deliver a gentle mocking or at least express disagreement with what the person said, you are depriving the individual of the opportunity to learn from his or her mistake. Why would you withhold such an opportunity just because the stupid statement appears to be based on religion? Do you despise religious people so much that you would deny them the chance to learn from their mistakes? I certainly don't. Many religious believers are great people, and I'm not interested in seeing them suffer or inflict suffering on others. I don't think I could reconcile that with humanism or any of my other values.

10.09.2013

Why Are They Religious?

Young Buddhist monks in Tibet.
Young Buddhist monks in Tibet. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Many atheists occasionally scan their surroundings and wonder how it can be that they are surrounded by religious believers. It seems so difficult to comprehend, at times, how is it that this many people seem to be so deluded about the nature of reality. We invent all sorts of explanations for what we see around us, and most of them draw heavily from pop psychology. Maybe they fear death and cling to religion because it offers them immortality. Maybe they are so narcissistic that the notion of invisible entities looking over them makes sense. Maybe it is just ignorance, a lack of critical thinking, and the shoddy education to which they have been subjected. Maybe they don't really believe it at all and are just trying to conform with what they know is expected of them. As intellectually stimulating as it can be to ponder such explanations, most of us recognize that no single explanation will apply to all religious persons. And even though we find them less interesting, I suspect that most of us recognize that more mundane explanations are likely at work.

10.08.2013

Additional Thoughts on Boredom Among Atheists

English: Boredom Italiano: Noia
Boredom Italiano: Noia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Internet may have changed the experience of boredom by making it easier for us to find interesting content, but I do not think it has rendered the concept of boredom obsolete. I suppose this should not be surprising. After all, I still remember when we moved from 3-4 channels of network TV to the 100+ channel packages we now enjoy through cable and satellite TV. They did not eradicate boredom either; we simply learned that 100+ channels of crap is still crap.

I recently wrote a post about boredom among atheists in which I noted that I do find myself feeling bored with online atheism from time-to-time and that I think this happens mostly because the content seems to fall into the same few areas, each of which can seem a bit monotonous after awhile. I find that I tire of writing about the same handful of things here almost as much as I tire of reading about them elsewhere. Cephus (Bitchspot) shared his thoughts on the subject, and something he wrote resonated with me:
One of the problems with being an atheist, we don’t get monthly notices that we’ve liberated another country, or even a city or small town, from the ravages of religion. Very little ever changes, it’s the same old thing, day after day, week after week and month after month.

10.07.2013

Boycotting Hobby Lobby

Terry Firma (Friendly Atheist) recently asked whether Hobby Lobby should be boycotted for not selling Hanukkah supplies. I'd say no, and Terry seems to agree:
I’m pretty sure the 561-store chain doesn’t sell glittery pentagrams and cute Ramadan calendars, either. There’s no law that says a store owner has to cater to all demographics, religious or otherwise.
Pentagram
Pentagram (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course, if I was determined to have "glittery pentagrams" and they refused to stock them, I might opt to shop somewhere that did. For the record, I prefer my pentagrams inverted and without any glitter. Some might say that my decision to shop elsewhere is a boycott, but I'm not sure I agree. I tend to see it as making a personal decision to support businesses that don't regularly make asses of themselves and avoid those who do. That means that I do what I can to avoid supporting businesses that push fundamentalist Christianity. And as someone living in Mississippi, that means I don't do much shopping!

A far more interesting question about the Hobby Lobby issue is whether they should be boycotted for how their employee allegedly treated the Jewish customer who asked about Hanukkah merchandise ("We don't cater to you people"). I think this employee should face consequences of some sort as should the person who allegedly suggested that their Christian corporate culture justified what sounded like bigotry. If there are no consequences and some decide they are not satisfied with Hobby Lobby's apology and want to boycott them, I'd see little wrong with their doing so. It would be tough for me to join in since I decided years ago that they'd be seeing none of my money.

What do you think? Should companies like Hobby Lobby face boycotts for incidents like this? And is there a meaningful difference between making a personal decision not to support a business (like I have with Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A, and a few others) and boycotting a business?

10.06.2013

When Nuance is Absent, Polarization and Conflict Thrive

Barack Obama signing the Patient Prot...
Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the White House (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We know what nuance means; we often complain about how it is lacking. Whether we are referring to political debates, the manner in which our mainstream news media cover important stories, or even how many talk about "the great rift" in the atheist community, we generally seem to agree that there is a noticeable lack of nuance. What we mean is that complex and multifaceted issues are being oversimplified, often dichotomized, and that the result is misleading at best and drives polarization and conflict at worst.

Freedictionary.com defines nuance as:

1. A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation. 2. Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.
So if nuance refers to subtle differences in meaning and the appreciation for such differences, the lack of nuance about which we regularly complain involves the minimization, trivialization, or even denial of such differences. When nuance is absent, we tend to hear a lot about "good" and "evil" or "right" and "wrong." The shades of grey are lost, and we are left with something that many of us associate with religious thinking. Of course, one need not be religious to subscribe to a "you're with us or against us" worldview.

10.02.2013

What Atheism+ Could Have Been

Atheism+

On August 19, 2012, blogger Jen McCreight unleashed "Atheism+" upon the world, and some would say the atheist community has been divided ever since. Of course, that is not true. We were already divided, and while Atheism+ was certainly experienced as divisive by many, it would be inaccurate to say that it alone brought about "the great rift."

For those willing to admit that we make mistakes, our missteps often provide us with valuable opportunities to learn how we might get it right next time. What I'd like to suggest here is that even mistakes made by others might contain valuable lessons from which we might someday be able to benefit. Some will suggest that this post may be premature, and they may be right. Some are not quite ready to recognize the demise of Atheism+. Still, I think it might be useful to consider what was, what might have been, and what could still be for atheists who are serious about social justice.