VIDEO LINK

ABC Middle East correspondent Anne Barker became the target of an angry mob of Orthodox Jews.  The protest she was filming was happening because a local council decided to open a municipal carpark on Saturday.  As she filmed, several protesters noticed her.

I found myself herded against a brick wall as they kept on spitting – on my face, my hair, my clothes, my arms.

It was like rain, coming at me from all directions – hitting my recorder, my bag, my shoes, even my glasses.

Big gobs of spit landed on me like heavy raindrops. I could even smell it as it fell on my face.

Somewhere behind me – I didn’t see him – a man on a stairway either kicked me in the head or knocked something heavy against me.

I wasn’t even sure why the mob was angry with me. Was it because I was a journalist? Or a woman? Because I wasn’t Jewish in an Orthodox area? Was I not dressed conservatively enough?

No.  It was none of that.  She was using a camera.  Using a camera is a desecration of the Shabbat.  For pressing a button on a camera, these idiots decided that she deserved to be spat upon.  Not just a little, either.  She deserved to be covered in spittle.  She deserved to be kicked in the head.

This is obviously not the first time we’ve seen organized stupidity in the name of religion.  Various groups are ready to kill and torture for crimes ranging from drawing a cartoon to naming a teddy bear to performing legal abortions to being raped by an uncle.  It’s not my purpose to point out that there’s a lot of stupidity in religion.  If you are not aware of this fact, you either live in a cave or have permanent blinders attached to your head.

Instead, I want to make the case that “Live and Let Live” is simply not compatible with religion.  Sure, there are moderate religious people in most every religion who are content to let others have differing beliefs, but I think we’ve had it wrong all along.  These people aren’t the rule.  They’re the exception, and the exception doesn’t disprove the rule in this case.

I realize that this isn’t a popular position, and I also realize that it’s kind of hard to prove, in a statistical sense.  Here’s the problem.  Very few people want to be identified as religious extremists.  In fact, many people who are religious extremists don’t believe themselves to be.  Compounding this is the well known fact that people tend to see themselves as more rational, fair, and altruistic than they really are.  The result, then, is that in surveys, we would expect to see a large number of people self-identifying as religious moderates when in fact, their beliefs and attitudes are quite extreme.

Consider the extremist position of advocating, voting for, and demonstrating publicly for the legislation of a purely religious belief.  (I don’t think anyone would argue that this is an extreme practice of religion, would they?  It’s not “live and let live.”)  We have plenty of that in America, and a great deal of it is coming from the live-and-let-live moderates.  Moderates have been active supporters of prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in court houses, the tampering with the Pledge of Allegiance, the teaching of religion as science in public schools, abolishing a woman’s right to reproductive choice, banning sex toys, changing the constitution to legalize discrimination against gays, restricting the rights of retailers to sell perfectly legal products on days of religious observation, and dare I say it… protecting the interests of Israel primarily because of its place in the history of our major religion.

If only those who self-identify as “fundamentalists” or “theocrats” or other extremists were behind all of these measures, none of them would ever pass.  The U.S. would be a truly secular nation with separation of church and state if only 20-25% of the population actively supported things like “faith based initiatives.”  But as we’ve seen time and time again, religious legislation has the support of large swaths of the American public.

I don’t want to harp on this for too long since it will distract from my main point.  I’m not trying to prove that there are lots of religious extremists in America.  That, too, should be patently obvious.  What I’m trying to do is demonstrate that religion itself — the belief in things that contradict science, and the validity of feelings over evidence — promotes and encourages this kind of behavior, and more importantly, that religious tolerance is NOT the normal state of affairs in religion.  It’s the exception that proves the rule.

In defense of this claim, I offer the following:

• Humans, by nature, form religion in their own image.  Humans, by nature, are prone to intolerance, herd mentality, and group-think.
• Many, if not most, religious moderates are more moderate in practice than belief.  At least in my experience, most moderates, if pressed, will agree with many of the extremist practices in principle, but will lament extremists as too “over the top.”
• Our statistics on religious moderates are largely from self-identification, and people tend to identify as less extreme and more tolerant than they really are.  We should expect the number of “real extremists” to be higher than the statistics indicate.
• The history of successful religious litigation, and the continued erosion of the church-state wall indicates very broad support — much broader than just self-identified extremists.
• We see the same patterns in other major religions,  Islam and Judaism in particular.  It’s a lot more talk of tolerance than practice.
• The “true feelings” of moderates towards atheists.  Time and again, atheists are viewed by the majority of theists as untrustworthy, immoral, or just outright evil.

If moderation and tolerance was the default setting for religion, we should expect that across cultures, extremists would have very little say in government, and that by and large, there would be few public fights over matters of religion.  What we see is quite the opposite.  In most countries where the population is primarily religious, we see heated and often violent public and legislative fights over how to institutionalize, legalize, and give preferential treatment to religious interests.

Human nature is not always pretty, and religion facilitates and encourages many of the worst parts of it.  It gives people permission to believe themselves correct despite outside reality checks.  It gives us permission to go to the dark places in human nature and not only give them voice, but put them into practice.  It lets us spit on women, cut off their genitals, and stone them to death after raping them.  Not only that, it gives us permission to believe that anyone who says anything about it is an infidel.

No.  Religion is not about tolerance.  When a person is religious and tolerant, it’s not the religion’s doing.  It’s the person’s own nature overriding the destructive and divisive beliefs that religion gives them permission to have.  When a church adopts a kind, gentle view of Christianity that doesn’t shout about hell and damnation, it’s because the people in the church are good in spite of the nastiness inherent in their religion.

Religion is poison.

The Vagina Clown Car Movement is apparently picking up steam.  It’s certainly getting a lot of mainstream coverage.  This article in Newsweek gives us everything we need to be sure that this is a dangerous, sexist, and growing movement.  Forgive me for doing a lot of quoting, but I think there’s a lot here that you, gentle readers, need to know, and I can’t really hope to improve on the words straight from the horse’s mouth.

At the heart of this reality-show depiction of “extreme motherhood” is a growing conservative Christian emphasis on the importance of women submitting to their husbands and fathers, an antifeminist backlash that holds that gender equality is contrary to God’s law and that women’s highest calling is as wives and “prolific” mothers.

There you have it, folks.  At the heart of the vagina clown car movement is a blatantly sexist agenda.  This is about men, not women.  Should we be surprised that people who are trying to return to the roots of a misogynist Bronze Age mythology should rediscover the idea that the best way to keep women quiet is to keep them barefoot and pregnant?

Mary Pride, an early homeschooling leader whose 1985 book “The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality” is a founding text of Quiverfull, convinced many readers that regulating one’s fertility is a slippery slope. “Family planning is the mother of abortion,” she writes. “A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular.” Instead, Pride and her peers argue, Christians should leave family planning in God’s hands, and become “maternal missionaries”: birthing as many children as He gives them as both a demonstration of radical faith and obedience, as well as a plan to effect Christian revival in the culture through demographic means—that is, by having more children than their political opponents.

Honestly, you couldn’t ask for more.  The woman who wrote the book on the subject admits — nay, brags — that this is about controlling politics.  We should not take this too lightly.  Maybe it’s a fringe element now, but we should never discount the power of large groups of delusional zealots.

Often, children of the movement are also called “arrows.” Quiverfull takes its name from Psalm 127: “Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate.” A wealth of military metaphors follows from this namesake, as Pride and her fellow advocates urge women toward militant fecundity in the service of religious rebirth: creating what they bluntly refer to as an army of devout children to wage spiritual battle against God’s enemies. As Quiverfull author Rachel Scott writes in her 2004 movement book, “Birthing God’s Mighty Warriors,” “Children are our ammunition in the spiritual realm to whip the enemy! These special arrows were handcrafted by the warrior himself and were carefully fashioned to achieve the purpose of annihilating the enemy.”

I’m actually finding it hard to think of anything to say about this.  If you don’t read this and feel a twinge of fear, something is wrong with you.  These people are ambitious, zealous, delusional, and growing in power.

Quiverfull advocates Rick and Jan Hess, authors of 1990’s “A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ,” envision the worldly gains such a method could bring, if more Christians began producing “full quivers” of “arrows for the war”: control of both houses of Congress, the “reclamation” of sinful cities like San Francisco and massive boycotts of companies that do not comply with conservative Christian mores. “If the body of Christ had been reproducing as we were designed to do,” the Hesses write, “we would not be in the mess we are today.” Nancy Campbell, author of another movement book from 2003 called “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” exhorts Christian women to do just that with promises of spiritual glory. “Oh what a vision,” she writes, “to invade the earth with mighty sons and daughters who have been trained and prepared for God’s divine purposes.”

I mean, hell’s bells, folks!  These people think they’re building an army for Jesus!  And somebody thinks this is ok?  We’re ok with people having seventeen kids and training them all to believe that women are subservient to men, and then getting them to take over Congress?  Really?  This is ok?

Quiverfull doesn’t follow from any particular church’s teachings but rather is a conviction shared by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians across denominational lines, often spread through the burgeoning conservative homeschooling community, which the U.S. Department of Education estimates has more than 1 million school-age children, and which homeschooling groups say easily has twice that number.

Two million!  I wasn’t kidding when I said this movement is dangerous, and that it’s growing.  You think eight years of Bushie-Jesus was bad?  Wait until Congress is filled with these nut-jobs and they get a president who sees things their way.

Quiverfull’s pronatalist emphasis is linked to a companion doctrine of strident antifeminism among conservative Christians who see the women’s liberation movement as the origin of a host of social ills, from abortion to divorce, women working and teen sex.

If I was a woman, I’m pretty sure I would be absolutely outraged.  No more divorce?  No working women?  And tell me, please, how feminism leads to teen sex.  That’s just baffling.

At the forefront of evangelical opposition to feminism is a group of self-described “patriarchy” advocates, who have reclaimed the term from women’s studies curricula to advocate a strict “complementarian” theology of wives and daughters being submissive to their husbands and fathers.

You see?  I’m not making this shit up, and I’m not exaggerating.  

This resurgent emphasis on women’s submissiveness takes many forms, from the statement by the 16 million member Southern Baptist Convention that wives must “graciously submit” to their husband’s “loving headship” and the theological works being written by the SBC-affiliated Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, to far more severe interpretations that claim women’s absolute obedience to their husbands is the first, necessary step toward Christians reclaiming the culture.

Sixteen million.  Yeah, I know, the Southern Baptists aren’t the same as the Quiverfulls, but I can tell you from my own upbringing that anti-feminism and patriarchy are very near the surface in a lot of Baptist churches.  I’ve been to a lot of churches, and it’s not hard to spot the sentiment.  Trust me.  These two groups are allies in the making, and we should not underestimate the power of the SBC in politics.

Some of the next generation of daughters is responding. Anna Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin, two young women in the Quiverfull movement who authored a book encouraging daughters to follow in their mothers’ footsteps, “So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God,” instruct their young peers to view motherhood to as women’s “final secret weapon in the battle for progressive dominion.”

Gentle readers, please do not let yourself be lulled into complacency by the reassurance that this is a fringe group, or that they are just a nutty group of extremists who could never hold sway over a whole country.  They have two very powerful weapons — religion and motherhood — both of which elicit vitriolic gut level reactions when they are publicly criticized in any way.  The people leading this movement know very well what they are doing.  They are literally trying to outbreed dissenters and take over the country.  It doesn’t take much math to realize that what they’re doing is not only possible, but relatively easy, given a few generations.

Recently, I’ve had a lot of private correspondence with “in the closet” atheists who asked me various questions about my “out of the closet” status.  The last email I received has prompted me to try to put my ideas into a more concrete form.  I want to address two issues.  First, what I call an atheist’s moral imperative.  Second, social atheism — that is, how to be an atheist in a Christian society.  

I’ve already written a blog post about this topic, and I’d like to encourage you to read it now if you have not done so before.   That article focused on one primary part of what I consider to be every atheist’s moral imperative.  I believe that individually, each atheist in America has the obligation to be open about their lack of belief.  First, consider why atheists feel the need to conceal their beliefs:

• Family – As I mentioned in the linked article, religion is hereditary, and for those of us who grew up in religious families, it’s often difficult — and sometimes devastating — to be openly atheist.  Family relationships often deteriorate, or become antagonistic, or in extreme cases, dissolve entirely.  We all have a desire to be close with our family, and it pains us to do something that hurts them.  I submit to you, gentle atheist, that by not being openly atheist, you are likely to cause more harm than if you pretend otherwise.  This is one of the ways that religion propagates — by silencing dissent.  Have you ever thought about how many other members of your family might have left religion if only they’d known that they wouldn’t be totally alone?  Can you really justify your own desire for acceptance as more important than giving other people a reasonable chance to think for themselves?  How many children in your family would benefit from knowing that they are not alone in asking questions about the absurdity of religion?  How many could be helped by seeing the world as it really is, instead of being presented the facade that everybody is religious?
• Social – Many atheists fear that their social networks will break down, or that they will be ostracized if they are openly atheist.  In many cases, they are absolutely right.  When I became openly atheist, I lost virtually all of my friends.  This is exactly why atheists have an obligation to come out.  Religion is dangerous because it silences dissent and promotes the illusion that everybody is religious.  If you recognize that as true, then are you not being hypocritical and allowing other people to be trapped by religion by not standing up for yourself?  The good news, of course, is that there are a LOT of atheists in America.  By some estimates, one out of every eight people, on average, self identifies as atheist, agnostic, or non-religious.  Think about that.  That’s one out of eight who openly identify as non-religious.  If you are in the closet, and you recognize the power of religion to stifle dissent, doesn’t it stand to reason that the real number of atheists is much higher?  Don’t you owe it to them to help them also come out?  Also, don’t you owe it to yourself to find friends who accept you for you are, instead of having to pretend to be like them in order to be accepted?  I, for one, have been immensely happy since finding a group of atheist friends — much more happy than I was before, despite having to endure the loss of friendships.
• Work – Many atheists are afraid of professional repercussions from coming out.  I admit to being one of them.  In my line of work, my customer base is very representative of the culture in general, which means that a lot of them are Christians.  I suggest that there are two very good reasons to not pretend to be theist because of work.  (I make an important distinction here.)  First, there are anti-discrimination laws in America, and for good reason.  No workplace ought to be able to enforce any religious code on its workers, and in fact, religion and work should never mix.  If you are at a workplace where your atheism being discovered would cause you problems, then you are at a workplace that needs to be hit with a lawsuit.  Workplace discrimination is wrong, whether it’s because of race, religion, sex, or sexual preference.  I do not advocate “preaching atheism” at work.  It’s not the place for religion or politics.  But, if you are not coming out socially for fear of your workplace, then there is a problem with your workplace.
• Passifism – Some people genuinely don’t want to rock the boat.  They have a nice life, and they don’t see religion as a problem.  To these people, I say:  ”Take off your blinders.”  Either you’re lying about not seeing religion as a problem, or you really have a problem seeing reality.  First, read THIS ARTICLE, and then realize that in-the-closet atheists are in exactly the same position as religious moderates.  If they are not actively standing up against religious fanatacism, legislation, and indoctrination, then they are enabling it.  They are literally allowing it to happen, and are therefore responsible.  If you are an atheist who believes theworst parts of religion are bad, and you are doing nothing, then you are responsible for the worst parts of religion.   The existence of the somewhat not so crazy moderate Christians does not excuse you from addressing the nut jobs who are causing real harm in the world.

Now, it’s one thing to say that atheists have a moral imperative to come out.  It’s quite another to know how to do it.  I’ve been openly atheist for a decade now, and I’ve only recently become comfortable with how I handle religion in public.  One of the defining moments for me was the last time I was called for jury duty.  After addressing the jury before the beginning of the trial, the judge swore us all in at once.  He read the oath that we were to take, and asked if there was any of us who felt he  could not in good conscience take the oath.  As it ended with “so help me God,” I knew that I could not in good conscience take the oath, but I hesitated.  If I made a stink about it and asked for a non-religious oath, would that undermine my credibility with the jury?  Would it cause me to be struck?  My moment of hesitation cost me.  I left the courtroom feeling ashamed for not standing up for myself.

I have come to realize that there is a fundamental truth about social situations.  If someone puts me in a position of being threatened by religion, and I object politely, in a socially acceptable way, I have done my part.  I need not preach, nor get angry, nor tell them how horrible they are for putting me in the position.  I simply need to speak up for myself.  As an example, a few years ago, the following conversation took place at a Thanksgiving dinner:

Host:  You are the guest of honor (speaking to me), would you like to say grace?

Me:  No, thank you very much, though.

Host: (obviously slightly flustered) Oh, well, it doesn’t have to be fancy or anything.  Just whatever you feel.

(I’d like to interject at this point that the polite social thing for the host to do would be to accept my statement at face value and not press.  However, he pressed.)

Me: I’m sorry, I don’t pray.  I am not a Christian.

(Notice that I didn’t even say that I was atheist.  I just told him plainly and politely that I was not in his religion. )

Host: Oh… um… well, I’ll pray then…

The thing is, when he prayed, there was an obvious bit about the Lord Jesus speaking to the heart of non-believers and showing them the love of the one true god, blah, blah, blah, blah.  Who is in the wrong here?  Is it me, for politely being myself, or is it the believer who did not accept my refusal and then attempted to make a public spectacle of me at his table after inviting me into his house?

Over the years, I’ve learned to endure these moments, for they are usually trivial.  Once I got over feeling that I was somehow the cause of other people’s embarrassment, and realized that it was not I, butthey who were causing their own consternation, it became easy for me to be at peace with myself.  I do not hide my atheism, nor do I preach it.  I simply stand up for myself and demand simple respect.  

In my experience, the fear of religious retribution is usually worse than the actual retribution itself.  Sure, there are bosses who will treat atheists unfairly, and social groups who will not hang out with them, but for the most part, we still live in a country where people are free to practice whatever religion — or lack of religion — they choose.  I cannot fathom why an atheist would choose to practice what he does not believe in, especially given how easy it is to politely decline and say, “Thanks, but no.  I am not Christian.” 

It’s such a simple phrase, but it is immensely powerful.  First, it openly breaks the power of religion to silence dissent.  Once you have uttered those magic words, your peers have the choice of treating you fairly, and being “Good Christians” in the process, or of treating you poorly and being not only in the wrong socially, but being hypocrites as well.  ”Love thy neighbor,” my ass.  For too long, Christians have lived under the delusion that America is a Christian nation, and that their ways are the norm.  It is time they are shown otherwise.  America is a constitutionally neutral nation with a lot of Christians, but there are many other beliefs — the second most popular belief system in America behind Christianity is non-theism.  All we have to do is politely stand our ground.  If we do this, we will have the law on our side, but more than this, we will help to change society for the better.

Sure, I believe that we ought to do more.  There are lots of laws that are religiously based.  The debate on stem cell research and cloning needs to end.  Intelligent Design needs to be struck from all curricula.  Religious tests for politics must be abolished in practice as well as in print.  Home-schooling by religious zealots must be reined in and they must be held accountable for teaching science.   I could go on, but I will not.  I wish that all of my fellow atheists had the same passion for actively changing the world that I have.  I realize, however, that it’s simply not practical to ask everyone to be an activist.  It is, I believe, practical to ask for the simple support of numbers.  If every atheist in America simply stopped pretending to approve of or participate in religion, it would be a lot easier for us activists to get things done.  Help us help you.  All you have to do is remember the magic words:  ”I’m sorry, no.  I’m not Christian.”