Filed under: Uncategorized
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-e-jones/at-health-care-town-hall_b_253125.html
Filed under: Uncategorized
I loathe cliches. As a writer I avoid them, as an intellectual snob I mock their philosophical emptiness. Yet I have discovered that in times of crisis I return to the greatest cliche of all: God. Or religion, really.
This week has been The Week of Really Shitty Things. Work was ridiculous, a friend of the family died young, my brother was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery and today my grandfather called and responded to my obligatory greeting with the information that no, he was not doing well. In fact, he’d just been diagnosed with cancer. And as this week-long lesson in bad karma draws to an end I admit that very briefly, I wished I could pray.
Agnostics don’t pray. We consider it an exercise in futility. But today I longed for the simplicity of religion. Religious faith requires no thought. It does not doubt, it does not rail at the heavens, it does not ask why. These are all reasons why I do not trust religious faith. Today, they were the reasons that I missed it.
I have no desire to return to Christianity. That would be the equivalent of a dog returning to its vomit. So this is not the lament of a prodigal daughter. Rather, this is the truth. It is how I feel. And I am telling it to the world (or at least the small part of the world that reads my blog) because I believe people are not honest as often as they should be. It is as hypocritical for an agnostic to deny her doubt as it is for a Christian to deny hers. Doubt is part of being human. So is pain. They are unavoidable realities. Fortunately love is too, and one does not need God to know love. It will be love that pulls me through this week and the next and the others after that. It is love that will save me. And it is why I mourned the loss of my religion no longer than an instant this long, rainy evening.
Filed under: Mental Health | Tags: mental illness, Obsessed, obsessive-compulsive disorder, TV
A and E’s latest foray into reality television tackles the difficult subject of mental illness. Its newest show, “Obsessed,” documents the lives of those who suffer from severe obsessive-compulsive disorder. It is the uniform severity of those cases that leads me to believe that A and E has deliberately filmed the most sensational cases they could find.
That’s not surprising. A and E does stand for Arts and Entertainment, and entertainment is a serious business. I suspect that “Obsessed” will thrive for the same reason that freak shows became popular during the 19th century. People like to be shocked. The difference is that 3.3 million Americans suffer from this disorder, and most of them do not exhibit the extreme behaviors exhibited by the subjects of this series.
I do not mean to downplay the severity of OCD. I am one of those 3.3 million Americans, and as such I am well acquainted with the difficulties presented by this illness. OCD can be crippling. It robs you of your self-confidence and chains you to your doubts. Like all mental illnesses, it is cruel and beneficial at turns. The same chemical imbalance that forces me to relive my worst moments also drives me to succeed. The trick is, as it always is, to find a balance.
However, I see no balance in A and E’s portrayal of OCD. The style of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) presented is as dramatic as the illness it is meant to correct. In one episode, a woman with a phobia of knives is order to hold a knife to her therapist’s throat. Although CBT does expose the patient to his or her worst fears, I have never heard of any therapist engaging in such a potentially dangerous activity. That is not as disturbing as the fact that therapy is a private process. It’s not meant to be sensationalized.
The sensational aspect of “Obsessed” could be useful. OCD is a misunderstood illness. It’s the disorder of the day. Everyone claims to be just a little bit OCD. “Obsessed” has the potential to shock these people into understanding how offensive their claims are to anyone who actually has the disorder. By exposing the public to extreme cases of OCD, “Obsessed” could engage in some CBT of its own and force people to face their fear of mental illness. If “Obsessed” succeeds in destroying even some of the stigma that surrounds mental illness, I’ll be the first to recommend its renewal for a second season.
“Obsessed” could also be a resource for people newly diagnosed with OCD. The Internet’s a useful tool, but reading posts in a support forum pales beside watching someone else struggle with hair pulling. I recently unearthed my old notebooks from the era of my diagnosis. The handwriting alone betrays the state of my mind at the time. It is stiff, upright and childlike in its precision. It’s more reminiscent of a penmanship exercise than a journal, and in a way, that is what it was: an exercise graded by the most unreasonable teacher imaginable. At its most severe, my OCD focused on my handwriting, and I will never forget erasing my notes and rewriting them until my brain told me that things were as good as they could possibly get. I will also never forget the overwhelming feeling of loneliness that eventually brought me to the brink of suicide.
If “Obsessed” can break through that kind of loneliness for the newly diagnosed, I’ll do more than recommend its renewal. I’ll damn well write the channel and picket the offices if it’s cancelled.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedars, Cedarville University, Christianity, feminism, journalism
Cedarville University, never the greatest fan of academic freedom, has finally shut the door on its student newspaper. CU’s Public Relations department had censored the paper for about a semester in order to limit controversial content, but apparently those censors were not conservative enough for CU.
I take a certain amount of pride in knowing that my articles annoyed the trustees of Cedarville University. It means I did my job. I made people think, and the people who refused to think simply got angry as they always do. I didn’t think it was possible for my opinion of Cedarville to drop, but it has. News flash, CU: Censorship is not ok. You don’t have the right to tell people what to say unless they are participating in hate speech. You are not my babysitter. You are not my parent. You are not my pastor or my counselor or my conscience. Your job is to educate me, and you have failed this job miserably.
I feel that I’ve wasted tens of thousands of dollars on this school. CU specializes in brainwashing, not education. It’s also difficult not to see this as a personal attack. I’m aware that my articles only contributed to the problem; they did not create the problem. The world does not revolve around me and My Edgy Feminist Style. But I do think I’ve been misunderstood, and that no one’s bothered to correct the misunderstanding. Why is it so terrible to identify oneself as a feminist? Feminism is not so radical as people seem to think. Feminism is about equal respect and equal opportunities–no more and no less.
I don’t want to go down in history as that liberal feminist girl. Who would? I don’t want to be defined by my politics or my ideology, and yet because I am outspoken, that’s the label that CU’s administration and student body has pinned to me. It makes me easier to understand. I’m a known quantity and I’m that much easier to dismiss.
And they did. They dismissed me, and my friends, and all the work we put into the student newspaper. That’s not all right. And we won’t be quiet about it. I invite you to visit the following two sites: http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=ydzqSHptgsHpmY9qRdCgCfjxVnfGrShq and http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/04/cedarville_stud.html for more info on Cedarville’s latest Epic Fail.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, conservative christianity, Dannah Gresh, modesty
Note: the student newspaper of Cedarville University (which has been shut down by the university since this letter was written) is called. Not The Cedars, but apparently this alumna did not know that.
Now for the letter, which was sent to Cedars’ editor, and not to me:
Is it coincidence that one of the nations most vocal opponents to immodesty hit the Cedarville campus the same day that Sarah Jones’ critique of Sanctify Ministries’ Modesty Panel, sensationally entitled “Immodesty and Misogyny,” hit The Cedars? I don’t believe in coincidence. I believe God ordains things. With that supposition, I couldn’t just turn a blind eye to what I saw in my alma maters newspaper on March 19, 2009.
Let’s start with where I do agree with the opinion piece. First, “modesty [does] go both ways.” Both men and women have a great responsibility to refrain from dressing like sex objects. Agreed. Second, there is never an excuse for a guy or a girl acting out on sexual thoughts regardless of how someone near them has dressed. We should “hold them responsible for their actions.” Agreed.
Ironically, these two points of agreement are actually where I begin voicing a concern with the Sarah. If she can make the statement that “modesty goes both ways,” why is it offensive that a women’s ministry led by women would invite women to an event to learn a little more about how they can do their part? Does modesty really go both ways? Either it does or it doesn’t. But you can’t say it does and then complain when women take responsibility for their part. Instead of applauding the attempt, it was compared to the “morality police [she’s] read about in Saudi Arabia and Iran.” Talk about sensationalizing an issue! Sounded like the atheists and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State who have sounded out against me as I speak out against immodesty in publications like USA TODAY, The Chicago Tribune and the Dallas/Fort Worth Star Telegram. They once called me “the Taliban!”
As far as stating that we should hold men who think sexual thoughts “responsible for their actions,” I agree. But in standing on this soap box, Sarah led those who did not attend the event to believe that the panel and event hosts blame women for the sexual thoughts of men. I did not attend the event, but I spoke with many who did. I understand that the men on the panel repeatedly stated their own responsibility for their thinking saying things like “We understand that this is still our problem” and “We are responsible.” One person told me they stated it “over and over.” There was no blame placed on women. Furthermore, I understand that even though only four men attended the event and that it was created for women, the panel and planners took time to discuss the kinds of clothing that men wear which causes temptation in women! This topic brought the male panel to a loss of words, so the mic was taken out into the crowd of women so they could clear the air about how guys need to be modest, too. Did you miss that part of the event, Sarah?
What I missed is how the word misogyny was used in the headline of this piece? Exactly where did that come into the picture? I’m not even sure where to add the thought that the headline seemed to be something set up to get people to divert their attention from the real issue of modesty to female hatred, which isn’t the issue at hand. (I think that’s called a straw man fallacy.) The issue at hand is modesty vs. immodesty.
Here are a few facts. In 2000, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, a group of OB/GYN’s committed to creating a medical cessation model to reduce teen sex listed the top five factors that place a teen (either male or female) at risk of sexual activity. One of those factors is “appears older than most.” How does a teen look older? By the way that they dress and present themselves. Of course, there are exceptions. Some students just look older, but in large part it is an issue of modesty. This factor has remained a indicator of risk since identified in 2000.
In 2007, the American Psychological Association released a task force report on the Sexualization of Girls. The findings of the two years of study state that music lyrics, Internet content, video games and clothing are now being marketed to younger and younger girls. The smutty content of the marketing is linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression, and early sexual activity. Ironically, this early sexualization presented to young girls has “negative consequences on girls’ ability to develop healthy sexuality.” The report stated that “it is of concern when girls at increasingly younger ages are invited to try on and wear clothes designed to highlight female sexuality. Wearing such clothing may make it more difficult for girls to see their own worth and value in any other way than sexually.” (Apa Report, pg 14) Immodesty is linked to some pretty sad stuff, Sarah, and there’s nothing wrong with creatively addressing it.
If right about now you’re applauding me for writing this, you might be surprised that I’ve not been writing to Sarah at all. I’ve been looking for you! I’ll make a drastic assumption that if you agree with me you probably don’t hold to a lot of the same ideals as Miss Jones. As far as I can tell from the three articles she wrote for the March 19 Cedars she is a left-wing Democrat feminist who is possibly a supporter of abortion (“Standing on the Promises of Change”) and sympathetic to homosexual “rights” (“Lyons Dulls The Ax”). I could be wrong, but her writing voice overall leads any reader to these assumptions. And that’s a problem for me. The Cedars represents Cedarville. And I know that Cedarville as a whole does not define a woman’s role the same way that Sarah does in these articles. There’s nothing wrong with having a woman with this voice writing for The Cedars. What’s wrong is that you have given her so much voice. The lack of voice from a Biblical woman (egalitarian or complementarian) is a sad commentary on you, not Sarah. Women of Cedarville, I love you. You know that I do, but if you cannot represent and defend true Biblical womanhood in The Cedars where you have the support of godly faculty and staff at an outstanding Christian university, how do you expect to wage the war in the public sector when you have to speak to entities the likes of The Wall Street Journal and The Philadelphia Inquirer?
Ask the Lord what your role in re-shaping The Cedars might be. Ask him if you’ve been complacent in representing the Biblical view of womanhood in your own student paper. And then, obey him in whatever he calls you to do.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, conservative christianity, Dannah Gresh, modesty, patriarchy
This article probably won’t make much sense to the fortunate readers who do not attend Cedarville University. However, I believe that conservative Christianity’s obsession with female modesty is oppressive and therefore I’m reposting my article here. I will also post a response from Dannah Gresh, the conservative co-author of Lies Women Believe.
Here’s the article:
First, a disclaimer: I am not overly concerned with the issue of modesty. I do not get up in the morning and worry about the tightness of my jeans and T-shirts because I find tight clothing uncomfortable, and therefore I do not wear it. I do not see myself as temptation on two legs (it’s an objectifying concept, and after all I am a feminist). Yet according to the men of Sanctify Ministries’ Modesty Panel, that is exactly what I am: temptation.
I find the very idea of an all-male Modesty Panel offensive. To me, it reeks of the morality police I read about in Saudi Arabia and Iran. But in the interests of fairness and yes, curiosity, I gave the Modesty Panel a try. I submitted four questions for the men and attended the Panel’s meeting on March 12th to hear their answers.
Although my particular questions were not answered, I received great insight into the mind of the typical Cedarville male. Since I have a teenage brother and graduated from a public high school, much of what was said came as no shock. It was the ideology behind the women’s questions and the men’s answers that I found truly shocking.
I’m not sure what to call this ideology. It goes beyond simple sexism, since the men claim that they are trying to respect women. But it certainly contains elements of sexism. There is no other reason for a group of men to feel that they have the righteous authority to tell a group of women how to dress. Clothe the sexism in religion, and it becomes even more insidious.
“We’re not trying to tell you what to do,” was a phrase repeated many times throughout the Panel. But when a religious man tells an equally religious woman that if she wears a particular piece of clothing it will force him to envision her naked, that is as good as a command.
The questions ran the gamut of the female wardrobe. From skinny jeans to wedding dresses, no article of clothing was left undiscussed. And the men were more than happy to offer their candid opinions. “Don’t wear those pajama bottoms to Chucks, girls, because if you do that it makes boys think about bed, and that makes them think about sex.” “Be careful how you sit, because sitting a certain way makes you look easy.”
The responsibility of modest behavior was put completely on women. In a subculture that reveres male headship, this is ironic. We women are told that men are our divinely ordained leaders–just don’t expect them to control their thoughts around an errant bra strap.
I believe this double standard is best illustrated by the conversation I had shortly before the Panel began. A male student stated that relaxing the dress code to include jeans would encourage women to dress immodestly. “I shouldn’t have to look at that!” he complained. When I asked him why he was looking at women like that anyway, he stared at me and exclaimed “That’s just how we’re wired!”
That is a cop-out. It is the coward’s response to a personal problem that he is not willing to confront. Should we excuse the alcoholic because that’s how she’s wired? The pedophile and the murderer are not excused for their crimes because of some genetic predisposition. Any student of psychology can tell you that some criminals are predisposed to criminal behavior. But this is the bottom line: we still send those criminals to jail. We still hold them responsible for their actions.
Modesty goes both ways. Women have a responsibility to themselves and to their male peers to refrain from dressing like sex objects. However, even if a woman fails this responsibility, men have a responsibility to respect her as a human being. They do not have that duty simply because they are men, but because they are human beings and women are their equals. And if a man can’t look at a woman in pajamas without thinking about sex, the problem is probably not with the woman’s pajamas.
Filed under: Christianity, Uncategorized | Tags: Gabe Lyons, religion, Unchristian
In his book Unchristian (which he co-authored with Dave Kinnaman), Gabe Lyons examines the results of a nation-wide survey that revealed that people outside the Christian faith typically have poor perceptions of Christianity. Lyons worked a researcher for the Barna Group and now serves as the founder of the Fermi Project. I spoke with him on March 26th when he visited my university.
Q: What is the most common reaction you’ve received to Unchristian?
LYONS: Actually it’s been a very good reaction. We weren’t sure that would be case, we thought there would be folks who wouldn’t want to hear these difficult things about themselves that we were describing and researching. But the reality is it’s been interesting to see how widely received it’s been. Like almost across the board with different types of groups that some people might not have thought would have embraced it have done so. So we’ve actually gotten very little negative feedback. Maybe we should have gotten more!
Q: So how do you react to some of the criticisms that you have gotten, that it’s a good thing that Christians are disliked by the world, that we should be anti-homosexual and judgmental?
LYONS: I think it’s absolutely false. If we look at Jesus as one example, when He comes on the scene 2000 years ago, that He embodied something 100% different from the religious people of the day that you could have pegged with these perceptions…judgmental, hypocritical. In that day, the religious were the ones who hated Jesus and were part of his crucifixion. For me, if we were hated for perceptions like “Christians are annoying because they’re so kind, so loving, they care for people so much that we think it’s fake,” then it would be a completely different story. But the perceptions we got back are really across the board the opposite of how we’ve been called to live. Some folks have an ax to grind, maybe because they’ve gotten a negative reaction when they’ve presented a witness to somebody. They see that as a mark of credit towards them: “I must have done something right because the gospel’s offensive.” The reality is the cross can be an offensive thing to a sinner when they first recognize it, but people shouldn’t ever be offended by the messenger, because that really comes down to 2 Tim. 2:24 and 25. The spirit of the Christian in any kind of discussion should be civil, should be to provide an answer but in a gentle way. So how can you have those kinds of relationships and conversations and still have that perception, I don’t know.
Q: In your book, you assume that all Christians believe homosexuality is a sin. So what about Christians who interpret the Bible a little differently, or even Christians who are in the GLBT community? Aren’t you just reinforcing the anti-homosexual stereotype by making this assumption?
LYONS: Obviously that was a tough one to write about culturally. Where we landed on is a lot of the definitions we give to human beings are derogatory, so even naming people as homosexuals is not consistent with how we talk about other human beings. We don’t call other people ‘heterosexual.’ We call them by their names. Part of this whole labeling idea that’s happening culturally that Christians have really fed into is not the way that Christ necessarily viewed people. He sees the woman at the well. Does He call her a prostitute? Is that how He sees her, as somebody in sexual sin when the reality is even though He knows that’s part of her background He sees in her the image of God and what she can become. He tells her to go and sin no more but He treats her like a human being. Instead of labeling people as gay, straight, bi, whatever our world wants to put on people, we need to see people as human beings made in the image of God. I don’t think we’re feeding into the current stereotype, but our main point in the book is that homosexuality doesn’t seem consistent with Christian discipleship. But we’re not the ones who are ultimately called to judge that. Unless we’re willing to talk about every other sexual sin, we shouldn’t be camping out on this whole homosexual deal. Let’s talk about pornography, let’s talk about adultery, let’s talk about any number of sexual sins and make them all part of a bigger discussion about sexual brokenness. That’s the better conversation.
Q: Will you be writing any more books based on further research?
LYONS: I’m working on a book now that is not based on research as Unchristian was, but it will deal with what it looks like to be Christian in the West. How do we be faithful but also credible? I don’t think the two are exclusive of one another. I think we can be faithful Christians and also be very credible, respected, and civil as we really embody the gospel and its truth. That book should be out next spring, in 2010.
Q: Do you have any practical suggestions for Christians who want to reach out to the secular world but haven’t had much exposure to unbelievers?
LYONS: There’s nothing better than just jumping into any scenario, just working alongside people in a non-profit or social situation happening in the city. You can’t just sit in a classroom and learn about how to interact with non-Christians. It becomes a big project. When you get into people’s stories and care enough to ask people about their stories what we find is that things are way more complex than we ever thought, sitting in a classroom trying to learn about it. The reality is when you show God’s love to people that what comes with that is an understanding of their condition and the realization that “Who are we to judge this person or look down on them?”
Q: Tell me a little bit more about the Fermi Project.
LYONS: It’s a non-profit that’s focused on helping people understand what it looks like to redeem cultures, to help faithful Christians understand that this is part of our call to Christian evangelism and discipleship. So we’re trying to educate and expose Christians to what our culture looks like today and what will it take for the gospel to go forward, what might it look like 20 years from now and how we can be creating that future, not just reacting to everything. Www.qideas.org is where everything feeds right now, even more than Fermi, because we’re trying to create a space where people are learning big ideas about all of this.
Filed under: Christianity, Politics, patriarchy | Tags: abortion, gay marriage, Jonathan Krohn, Missionaries to the Preborn, proposition 8, quiverfull, Reformed, religion, Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Twilight
There are some people, some trends that rise above the level of pet peeve. They are not merely petty annoyances, but rather sources of deep personal disturbance. Here is Sarah’s List of Things That Really Bother Her, 2008-2009 Edition.
1. Twilight Fans
“Fan” doesn’t really describe the depth of devotion these misguided (mostly female) people feel for Stephanie Meyer’s hideous Twilight Series. If you’re not aware, the Twilight Series is a badly written account of one idiotic teenage girl’s obsessive infatuation with her abusive vampire stalker. The series culminates in her marriage to and pregnancy by said stalker. The resulting fetus nearly kills her, but she refuses to abort. So she births Killer Fetus and her werewolf former flame immediately bonds with it. In other words. this is the story of an idiot, centuries old sperm and a pedophiliac werewolf.
What’s worse, girls love it. They’re obsessed. They dream of Edward Cullen (that’s the creepy stalker vampire, who just happens to glitter in the sunlight). They want to have his Killer Fetuses. In the names of good literature and feminism, I hereby name Twilight Fans the most horrifying phenomenon of 2008-2009.
2. Proposition 8
The only reason that California’s newly passed Proposition 8 is not at the top of my list is because I believe the Supreme Court will overturn it. Otherwise, Proposition 8 and its supporters handily beat Twilight Fans as the most disturbing trend of this year. A recap: Prop 8 bans same-sex marriage. The Mormon church poured millions of dollars into the campaign to pass Prop 8, as did conservative Christians. Prop 8 flies in the face of a Californian Supreme Court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal. The pro-Prop 8 campaign, currently spearheaded by Kenneth Starr (that’s right, the guy who impeached Clinton) is now arguing that all same-sex marriages that took place before the passing of Prop 8 should be nullified, which means that these 18,000 couples will be forcibly divorced. Supporters of Prop 8 have shown a total disregard for the civil rights of millions of Americans, and completely deserve a place on my list. If the Court does not overturn this ban you’ll see Prop 8 overtake Twilight Fans. I find it an amusing coincidence that the Mormon Church has a hand in both Prop 8 and Twilight (Meyer is a Mormon).
3. President Bush’s Midnight Legislation
Sorry, no funny picture. But in case you don’t know, former President Bush left the women of America with a parting gift: he issued an order that would redefine abortion to include contraceptives. The order would allow doctors who mistakenly consider contraceptives abortifacients to refuse to prescribe them. Fortunately, President Obama (I’ll never get tired of writing that) will overturn this blatant attack on reproductive rights. I like my birth control, and frankly, the Catholic Church can kiss my ass. It’s my uterus, not the Pope’s.
4 (tie). Christian Zionists
Christian Zionists have been around for a while, but they make my list this year because of their response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Actually, make that their nonresponse. These fanatics believe that Israel has a right to all the land in the Levant, even if those pesky Palestinians happen to be living there. The truly ironic thing is that these Christians believe most Jews are going to hell. As for the state of Israel itself, well, this list is for trends/people that bother me. If I ever compile a list of Countries Whose Leaders Should Be Arrested for Genocide, Israel would be on it.
4 (tie). Christian Patriarchists
The Christian patriarchy movement (closely tied to the Reformed and Quiverfull movements) makes no qualms about its goal to reestablish patriarchy. Organizations like Vision Forum actively push patriarchy as an appropriate lifestyle. I visit Vision Forum’s website for a good laugh; they often feature articles on the scandal of sending your daughter away to college. Members of this movement believe that young women should remain under their father’s control until they marry, and they cannot marry without the father’s consent. Traditional gender roles are strictly applied. Women in this movement typically wear long skirts in an effort to be more ‘feminine’ and are taught to believe that their main purpose in life is to be submissive baby-makers.
The Duggars of TLC fame are members of this movement, as is evangelist Voddie Baucham. Sadly, supporters of patriarchy are gaining momentum in the American church. It’s impossible to guess how many young women are being oppressed by this ideology, forced into a life where their higher education is not considered important and their fathers have say over every aspect of their lives.
5. Ron Paul Supporters
These sad people just can’t accept that Ron Paul is a.) a crackpot and b.) he will never, ever win a presidential election. Ron Paul may have lost, but God damn it these diehards still love the old fart. The fact that Ron Paul’s policies are completely insane doesn’t really factor into their thinking. He’s on the fringe, and so are they. Fortunately for the United States, it looks like they’re staying there. Rather unfortunate is their inablility to STFU about Ron Paul. Give it up, people. Tear down that poster hanging in the student center. But by all means emulate the man who stood in my local busy-as-hell intersection holding a Ron Paul sign.
6. Missionaries to the Preborn
Usually supporters of the “pro-life” movement would be higher on my list. However, Missionaries to the Preborn are so ridiculous that they are merely annoying, and serve no actual threat to reproductive rights. These brave crusaders believe that abortion is murder, and that the fetus is sacred. They even condemn birth control as abortifacient in nature (it’s not, for the record). The founder of this group is so sexist that he wrote an essay in which he lamented that women have the right to vote. Suck on that, Susan B. Anthony.
Missionaries to the Preborn rely on pseudoscience and graphic images, which they display by the side of the road for all to see. In their quest to paint Planned Parenthood as a modern Nazi Party, Missionaries to the Preborn utilize all the weapons at their disposal to fight what they truly believe is a war between good and evil. Fortunately for women, they’re so hilariously crazy that they are completely ineffectual.
7. The Secret Life of the American Teenager
Stephanie Meyer probably watches this series. “Secret Life of the American Teenager” romanticizes teen pregnancy and presents a version of public school that belongs in a category with “Reefer Madness.” I attended two different high schools (private Christian and public) and I never encountered characters like the ones presented in “Secret Life.” It’s completely unrealistic, and it teaches girls that hey, it’s not such a bad thing if you get pregnant. Abortion is unthinkable, and maybe your boyfriend will marry you even if he’s not the father! It’s all good! With teen pregnancy on the rise, a show like this a stupid idea.
8. Jonathan Krohn
Unlike John Stewart, I have no qualms about mocking Jonathan Krohn. Like my mother has so wisely told me, “If you stick your neck out, expect to get it cut off.” I don’t plan on cutting anything off Jonathan Krohn. But he is an annoying little twerp who is, fittingly enough, being lauded as the future of the Republican Party. Krohn has nothing new to say. He’s a fourteen year old parrot. And I will say this: when I was his age, I was a conservative too. I volunteered for conservative campaigns, I wrote letters to the editor condemning Al Gore. Seven years later I’m the pro-choice Vice President of my college’s chapter of College Democrats. In other words, there’s still hope for Mr. Krohn. Until then, I will revel endlessly in the idea that the Republican Party is so weakened that it is forced to appoint a fourteen year old homeschooler as its torchbearer.
9. Rush Limbaugh
I had hoped that this bloated drug addict held no real influence over the Republican Party. But the Republicans, not satisfied with Sarah Palin and their pre-pubescent homeschool cheerleader, have elevated Rush Limbaugh to the status of Party mouthpiece. That sound you hear? That’s the sound of the Republican Party’s credibility dying a slow and painful death. Limbaugh’s radio show, which runs for three (!) hours every day, is beloved by millions of beknighted listeners who haven’t yet realized that it is not in their best interest for Obama to do like Rush says and fail. LOL, Republicans, LOL.
10. Reformed Theology/Calvinism
Those of you fortunate enough to have no experience with conservative Christianity will probably not understand the depth of my loathing for Reformed Theology. It’s simple: Calvinism is responsible for the dominionist “Take America Back for Jeezus!” crap that is currently preoccuping the American Christian church. You see, Calvin wasn’t exactly a big fan of the separation of church and state. His followers aren’t either.
On a nerdy theological note, I also find Calvin’s so-called “Doctrines of Grace” a contradiction in terms. These doctrines have nothing to do with grace. Calvin believed in limited atonement, the idea that Christ’s sacrifice was intended only for the elect, the people God has chosen to go to heaven. That whole Jesus-died-for-the-whole-world thing? Meh. Some Calvinists go so far as to claim that God has chosen who will go to hell. This is Calvinism taken to its logical conclusion, and it’s disgusting. Calvin himself was no gem. He had no qualms about burning people at the stake, and tolerated no disagreement with his reign over Geneva. I see a trend, and I don’t like it.
This is has been an (incomplete) list of Things That Really Bother Me. Check back next year to see if Ann Coulter can indeed overtake Rush!
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Christianity, conservative christianity, feminism, fundamentalist Christianity, religion, sexism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/gender.religion
In her article “I’m Not Praying” Cath Elliot makes the claim that religion is anti-feminist. “Christianity is and always has been antithetical to women’s freedom and equality, but it’s certainly not alone in this.” she writes. “It’s the patriarchy made manifest, male-dominated, set up by men to protect and perpetuate their power.”
Although Elliot does have a point–religion has been used to justify horrible human rights abuses that include the systematic oppression of women–her thesis is flawed. Religion is not inherently anti-feminist. Neither is Christianity. Individual Christians are often sexist, as are millions of people who may or may not be religious. The fact that the Christian God is portrayed as male doesn’t make Him sexist; if we want to be really theologically accurate, God is a Spirit and doesn’t even have a gender. He’s even ascribed female characteristics at certain points in the Bible.
There’s the problem of the Old Testament, of course. The Old Testament appears contradictory in its treatment of women, first treating them as property but also featuring strong women like Mariam, Deborah and Jael. The two books named for women are in the Old Testament, and both feature women who blatantly used their sexual power to achieve their own ends. These women are still celebrated by Christians, although the fact that Ruth “lay down” with Boaz and that Esther was a concubine are usually ignored.
I think it is Christianity’s traditional attitude toward women that feeds Elliot’s perception. My personal experience has been similar to hers. Most conservative Christians I know are sexist at least on some level. Some are more vocal than others. Worst of all, the women of this movement allow themselves to be oppressed. They are taught the lie that a woman’s place is at home, that she cannot preach or teach men, and that her main function is to be a subservient breeding machine for the head of the household. This is propaganda on the scale of Orwell’s Doublespeak, only this time the Party’s slogan (“War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength”) is lauded as Biblical truth.
Christian women have taken gradual steps toward gender equality. The United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Reformed Church of America, and certain Presbyterian and Anglican congregations permit female ministers. These churches recognize the inherent equality of women with men. But most denominations still forbid female leadership. The Southern Baptist Convention (with whom Cedarville is affiliated) recently reaffirmed its adherence to traditonal male headship. This creates a poisonous environment for women, and adds to the unflattering perception that people like Cath Elliot have of Christianity.
As long as women believe the conflicting idea that although they are of equal worth to men they are to be submissive to them, Christianity will be used as a tool to oppress and domineer females. Those of us who don’t swallow that lie need to take a stand. We need to reject the false dichotomy projected by Christian patriarchy. Until then, Cath Elliot’s point stands largely unchallenged.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Cedarville University, Christianity, election, God, Obama, Politics, religion
On a brutally hot day in the summer of 2008, Barack Obama visited a blue-collar town in the Appalachian mountains. That town is my town, and I was there to hear him speak. My friends and I had waited in line for hours, and sweat had glued my shirt to my back. I hate waiting in line. I hate getting up early. But I held out, and when I finally walked into that high school gymnasium I realized that the wait had been worth it.
You have to understand where I come from, and what kind of family I have. I am from the South, and I am the direct descendent of slave owners. In fact, my family still has the ledger with the slaves’ names, ages and prices. We are not racists any more, but that is my history. It is the history of many Southerners. There is a reason why Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in the South, and it is not because the South is an open, tolerant place.
Years of hearing racist jokes from my classmates and years of watching the Confederate flag displayed in pickup trucks had not prepared me for what I saw in that gymnasium. The South had come together. The gym was equal parts white and black. I never had any hope that I would ever see such a thing but on that day, I did.
The coal miners sat beside the residents of our low-income housing complex and cheered. As for me, I was busy absorbing the scene around me. I am a cynical person, and I boast a healthy distrust of politicians. I’d supported Barack Obama before he came to my hometown, but that morning convinced me that there was something unusual about this campaign. Obama had done what no other politician had been able to do. He had brought us together.
Fast forward to my return to campus. The reaction to Obama was what you’d expect from 3000 conservative Christians. I had my salvation questioned. I was called ignorant and foolish. I was told that Obama was the Antichrist, and I was told that even if he wasn’t the Antichrist his government would lead to the end of the world.
And do you know something? It already has led to the end of the world. The world as we know it is changed. It is over. And I believe that is a very good thing. Last night, I attended an Obama party thrown by a campus organization called P.E.A.C.E Project. It was the rowdiest party I’d ever attended. There were McCain supporters there, but they were there to support us. No one criticized anybody else. I saw people dance with complete abandon. I saw people with tears running down their faces. I heard a McCain supporter apologize for not understanding what Obama’s election meant to us.
We had been brought together again. Of course, this second time was not just Obama’s doing. God was there that night. And while I doubt he has a political affiliation, I think He was content. On that night, the descendents of slaves and the descendents of the men and women who had owned them danced together.
If I ever have children, and if those children ever ask me about this election, that is the story I will tell them. It is the story that warms me in spite of the insults I hear from ignorant people. It is the story that, for a moment, brought me frighteningly close to patriotism. It is the story of a people, and how they fought, and how they won.
Congratulations, President-Elect Barack H. Obama. Don’t let us down.
