tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-40249344537959087232024-03-12T21:58:33.407-06:00A journey to reasonNate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-68436844770815302952014-10-19T17:47:00.002-06:002014-10-19T17:47:28.256-06:00The Real Problem Between Atheism and Feminism<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I posted this link to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/">an article about misogyny</a><span style="font-size: small;"> recently on Facebook. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Things got ugly real fast. I blocked a few folks, deleted a few comments and tried to mitigate the damage with little success. You see, what tends to happen on Facebook is someone makes a post then as responses start, the intent of the post is quickly lost (if it was ever understood to begin with) as the thread </span><span style="color: #222222;">descends</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> into personality clashes, new, often irrelevant arguments, and barely disguised. okay, let's be honest, undisguised contempt for everyone who dares to challenge the simple, eloquent brilliance of the next person's comment.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">I freely admit that I'm just as </span><span style="color: #222222;">vulnerable, and guilty,</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> as the next person in this regard. To be fair, I truly believe that MOST people posting feel passionate about the subject and genuinely want to change things. But I'm increasingly realizing that the Facebook thread format is NOT the venue for genuine discussion and debate. The structure and controls are just not there.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Near the end of the thread a woman posted a comment that was critical of my position. I took a deep breath and began writing my response to her. Because I genuinely want this issue to be fixed in the atheist community. As I formed my response it got longer and longer and I realized it needed more time and attention...and another venue. So here I am. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">It's impossible to fairly summarize the entire thread so I won't try. But I will start by pasting in the post that started my writing:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".3a.1:3:1:$comment10152326648346765_10152329886261765:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.$body.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$0:0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".3a.1:3:1:$comment10152326648346765_10152329886261765:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.$body.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$4:0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;">"Why is an imbalance in an authors readership inherently a problem? "</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".3a.1:3:1:$comment10152326648346765_10152329886261765:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.$body.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$8:0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;">You have women here in this very thread talking about why it's a problem. You've had women tell you in other threads you've posted like this, and, more widely, in comments, and essays, and books, and articles...we've been talking about lack of representation, lack of welcome, sexism, etc for A LONG TIME. To act like that conversation hasn't already taken place MANY TIMES is either ignorant or deceitful.</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".3a.1:3:1:$comment10152326648346765_10152329886261765:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.$body.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$12:0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;">Nate, I grew up as you did--in a very fundamentalist, anti-feminist sect. And even after I walked away from fundamentalism, I had a very hard time understanding the feminist position because I had a lot of misogynistic programming in my head. It took a very long time to overcome most of that (not all--it still crops up. I still combat it every day.) </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span data-reactid=".3a.1:3:1:$comment10152326648346765_10152329886261765:0.0.$right.0.$left.0.0.$body.$comment-body.0.$end:0:$16:0" style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;">My best advice to you would be to stop talking and start LISTENING. Women are talking about this stuff. If you truly want to know what we think then GO OUT AND FIND THE MANY MANY PLACES WHERE WE'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS. If you are truly interested, then do the work to find out. </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;">Because, honestly, if you aren't willing to do that work, then it appears as if you're trying to score a rhetorical point ie "Welp, no one told me why it was wrong that there's not a lot of women actively involved in atheism (in the exact time and place I specified,) so I can continue thinking there's no problem."</span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I do not contend that there is not imbalance in the atheist movement. I lived with such an imbalance throughout my childhood. I accept the evidence for that as well as some evidence that women continue to be treated as less than in this community and the world at large. I have never taken any position other than that. </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">I have, however started expressing my growing frustration over how polarizing and destructive the topic has become. It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no room for nuanced discussion. At the same time, there is an increasing willingness to knee jerk plant everyone who decides to talk about it outside the accepted framework directly in the </span><span style="color: #222222;">misogynist</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> camp. Common sense tells us that's nonsense, but we continue to do it. And it's getting worse. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Just as in the majority of issues in life, I believe the truth about feminism and sexism lies somewhere in the uncomfortable </span><span style="color: #222222;">grayness</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> of it all. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, back to this post and my intention. <b>My intention</b>, not the dozens of intentions attached to me by various posters here:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1. The original interview with Harris included a question about why he thought the majority of <b>his readership</b> were men.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2. Ms. Marcotte referenced that question in her article, changed it to the majority of <b>atheists</b>, then criticized his response saying "Harris didn’t even consider that it could be atheism that has a problem." </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3. In her use of the term "problem" relative to his response about his readership, she neatly switched the argument to something it was not. Harris' response was about his readership, NOT atheism in general.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;">4. I thought it was important to point out that switch because it says something to me. Just like the photo of a hunch-backed Dawkins, the presumptive title (at least where Harris is concerned), and the plethora of inflammatory terms such as "sexist blather", hyper-defensive, etc, this article increases the misinformation and divide. We don't need that! More important it feeds a frenzied segment of the movement who are now convinced that there is a conspiracy of atheists determined to push women's rights back to the middle ages.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This issue is clearly fraught with emotion. I get that. I also get that I can only relate to women, as with every other human, on an intellectual level. I'm not a woman and I can't understand it completely. I'm reminded constantly in my interactions with humans that women have no choice, at this point, but to view and interact with the world as though it were more dangerous than men have to view and interact with it. I also understand that it should not be this way.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">But continuing to tolerate this kind of yellow journalism and continuing to attack misogyny with a blunt club is just going to separate us more. I watched the same thing happen in America during the Civil Rights Movement. Intolerance of any message that challenged status quo was brutally beaten down.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Consider this from the article:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"First, he warmed up with the “women are humorless” gambit, declaring his “estrogen vibe” comment a joke that simply flew over female heads."</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Is it possible it was a joke? Isn't it a legal principal that we look at the entire body of evidence to help us decide the intent of a specific word or deed? Does Harris have a history of misogyny? In our search for REAL enemies of feminism, do we do the movement justice by automatically </span><span style="color: #222222;">labeling</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> everyone who offends us as a sexist jerk?</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"He then moved on to produce an awesome cornucopia of sexist blather: Women’s value is their service to men. (“I was raised by a single mother. I have two daughters. Most of my editors have been women, and my first, last, and best editor is always my wife.”)"</span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; min-height: 13.8px;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Wait, what?!? His acknowledgement of the importance and value of women in his life is sexist? Seriously, is that the idea we want to put on our placards as we march toward equality? Further, there is no fair reading of his words that amounts to "women's value is their service to men". I can't help but wonder at the response had Sam, instead talked about all the men in his life who had taught him to respect women and live as equals with them. Without question their would be these same articles attacking him for relying on the words of </span><span style="color: #222222;">privileged</span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"> old white men. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">And that brings me to another point. If white male privilege renders old white man opinions impotent, why the great out cry over every real and perceived slight?</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Women’s inherent desire to serve rather than lead explains their second-class status. (“For instance, only 5 percent of Fortune 500 companies are run by women…How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20s or 30s to have families?”) </span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Context Ms. Marcotte, context. This is what Mr. Harris said before and after the cherry picking:</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 22.3999996185303px;">I am well aware that sexism and misogyny are problems in our society. However, they are not the only factors that explain differences in social status between men and women. For instance, only 5 percent of </span><i style="color: #444444; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">Fortune</i><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 22.3999996185303px;"> 500 companies are run by women. How much of this is the result of sexism? How much is due to the disproportionate (and heroic) sacrifices women make in their 20’s or 30’s to have families? How much is explained by normally distributed psychological differences between the sexes? I have no idea, but I am confident that each of these factors plays a role. Anyone who thinks disparities of this kind must be </span><i style="color: #444444; line-height: 22.3999996185303px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px;">entirely</i><span style="color: #444444; line-height: 22.3999996185303px;"> a product of sexism hasn’t thought about these issues very deeply.</span></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Putting women on a pedestal is better than treating them like equals. (“I tend to respect women more than men.”) </span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;"><br /></span><span style="color: #222222; font-size: small;">Women who don’t defer to men are bitchy. (“However, I don’t think I’ll ever forget the mixture of contempt and pity my words elicited from this young woman.”)</span></span></blockquote>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is as though the author developed a list of "bad things that misogynists do" then went searching for evidence in Harris' response that he was one. That's not good journalism, and it's not good for this movement. </span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Does anyone honestly think that this article did anything to move our society toward resolving the real issues of feminism? Does this article give us tools for working together? What I believe this article does is provide a great example of the tone that is a very real, very destructive, part of this conversation.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;">Now I will say something that will probably be met with outrage from all sides, but it is what I have observed with other social conflicts and what I have experienced personally in my life. The real solution to sexism will not be found in indignation, it </span><span style="color: #222222;">will come from the action of women. You will not succeed at your goal of equality in all areas of life unless you do the hard work. Over and over again I saw members of the black community walking away from the rhetoric and digging in. Over and over again I see woman turning their back on the hyperbole of the movement and just doing it. I talk to women who refuse to spend time on defining the layers of psychology and intent of the enemy and just diving in, being the person, taking the action, to insure that they...they are not treated unequal. </span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #222222;">The Freethought movement simply IS NOT a cesspool of sexism and mysogyny. The Freethought movement has, by and large, responded quickly and effectively to deal with real examples of mistreatment that occur in our community. Contrary to the weird arguments I hear too often, the movement is not dictated to by Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, or any other so called leaders. And there is absolutely no evidence that anyone worth listening to has an agenda against women that they are determined to inculcate into the minds of zombie atheists.</span></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It's time for us to stop looking for high profile boogie men. It's time for us to allow a free exchange of ideas within the two movements without imposing a binary component to it. Sure, introduce your ideas. There are those in the movement who I respect for their willingness to, by and large, present their case without the need for name calling and line drawing. But the nonsense that happened on my thread has got to stop.</span></div>
Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-63217454334430048582014-09-13T16:49:00.000-06:002014-09-13T16:49:43.496-06:00There's Too Much NoiseI recently posted this on Facebook:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; line-height: 15.4559993743896px;">I gotta say...it seems like it's become a favourite past time of people to take something Dawkins says, present it in the worst light possible, then have a bitch fest about his sorry, privileged, European white ignorance.</span>It's kind of scary.</span></blockquote>
There were a variety of interesting responses and then this from my brother in law:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 12.2880001068115px;">Sounds like what you guys do with christians and the bible. So whats the problem?</span> </span></blockquote>
Hmm...how to respond to that? Hoisted on my on petard? How did I get here?<br />
<br />
Of course, it's not the same thing at all. Criticism of someone's ideas, and attacking him personally when you disagree, is not the same as saying that a 2000 year old belief system that has been demonstrably dangerous and destructive should be reconsidered with a jaundiced eye.<br />
<br />
But it was an insightful comment from another point of view. This argument...that a group is being personally attacked because their ideas are being challenged...is just one of many examples of what I refer to as "noise". It's reached a point for me that when someone invokes certain arguments in a discussion, I will just walk away. In fact, a few months back I introduced:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Phelps Law: "At some point during an online debate, someone will say something along the lines of "everyone is entitled to their own beliefs". When this happens, it will signal the end of the debate and that the person who makes the comment has lost."</blockquote>
To me, when an issue is raised and someone raises a challenge to that issue, the discussion is about the issue. Period. It is not about those advocating for or against the position, it's not about hurting feelings, it's not about muddying the water with irrelevant comments. Bertrand Russell says that when you consider a matter you should look only, and solely, at the facts and draw your conclusions from that. it is incumbent on all of us to look closely at our replies, especially online, and ask the question...does this comment focus on the argument, or does it create noise. If' it's noise, don't post it.<br />
<br />
And there is a lot of noise out there. An easy 80% of all the comments on that thread included noise. We need to become masters of noise reduction. We need to become more disciplined in our debate and discussion etiquette. Myself included.<br />
<br />
If you find yourself resorting to noise, maybe it's time for you to back away and reconsider your position. There is no shame in discovering you hold an untenable position. There is great shame in refusing to change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is no shame in embracing the grayness of life. Black and white...absolutes...rarely represent reality.<br />
<br />
Concede those points you lose. Agree to look into matters you don't understand and revisit the discussion another time.<br />
<br />
Stop attacking people personally when you don't like their argument. You look like a bully and it doesn't advance your position at all.<br />
<br />
Stop labeling people or groups in an effort to gain the upper hand in an argument. It weakens your position and leaves you vulnerable to the same tactics from others.<br />
<br />
Stop labeling arguments. Using inflammatory or catch phrases just muddies things up and makes it impossible to keep the focus on the argument.<br />
<br />
Stop telling people you have a right to your beliefs. No one is threatening that right, no one could take it from you if they wanted to.<br />
<br />
And...please...stop believing stuff just because someone told you to!!<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-27546209637555092162014-07-08T19:30:00.001-06:002014-07-08T19:30:38.125-06:00That's Not Real Christianity<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><i>"Hello:</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><i>I lived in Topeka and went to KU. I’m writing because I read the story about you... I watched your story...and...I don’t want you to give up on making the movie because of what I’m going to tell you.</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><i>Last year my mother and my sister and me went to a concert and Westboro was there with their signs. We were celebrating my sister’s birthday that night since she was 14. Even though we grew up in Topeka we had never seen the people and the signs up close until that night and we had to walk close by them to get in the building for the show. Two of the boys in the Westboro people and a woman picked on my sister and said mean things to her because she was kind of a tomboy. We went on to the concert but my sister was crying about what the boys and the woman said to her. Two days later my sister hung herself on the rod in her closet. She left a note that said she was gay and dying in the closet was easier then living in it. Those signs and the hateful things that Westboro did killed my sister. Three months later my mom overdosed on pills and was in a coma for two weeks until she died. She thought my sister dying was her fault because she made us go to church and they taught that gay was bad.</i>..</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<i style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">From a friend"</i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<i style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br /></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Saying anything beyond this seems to dilute the impact. I've deleted some content in the interest of protecting the author. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
At the same time this letter came to my attention I was reading a blog by a friend. The blog wasn't what stirred me though. I mean, the blog was great...her blogs are always great...but it was the comments on the blog that got me thinking. Specifically, it was one of those comments where someone insists that Westboro isn't real Christianity, most Christians aren't that way. Then the commenter goes on to explain that "real" Christians don't hate, they just think that some behaviours are evil and those who engage in them will suffer exquisite torture for eternity. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
See the difference?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Well I sure as hell don't!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
For the young girl in this letter, I can guarantee-damn-tee you that the difference was lost on her. I have no doubt that this girl spent years listening to the teachings of "real" Christians as they played word games that let them feel good about hating, while sending her the loud and clear message that she was evil and would suffer for it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
It's times like these when I grow weary of the bullshit. It's times like these when I am disgusted that someone wants to parse words and try to carve out a middle ground where they can justify their kinder, gentler hate while people are dying! I don't give a damn about any particular version of fantasy/religion when I imagine the real world reality of a parent finding their child hanging in a closet, or when I try to put myself in the shoes of this writer as she struggles to come to terms with the real world loss of a sister and mother. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Ideas have consequences. Don't you dare get on your self righteous horse and try to tell me that your version of hate isn't just another version of hate. If you follow "I don't have a problem with gay people" with a " but", you are responsible for the death of this girl. Period!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
There is no middle ground here folks. Either you accept that every human on this planet has the same rights you do, or you are complicit in the deaths of those you would trod underfoot.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-87492158559958242182011-07-19T10:53:00.008-06:002011-07-19T19:38:59.249-06:00Snickers & "The Bus"The other evening my Angela commented that she was worried about our cat Snickers. Several times she had caught him just suddenly falling over. We started watching him closer and, sure enough, there's something wrong with the little guy. After we both saw him suddenly flop on his side I looked into Angela's face and saw the same anguish I was feeling. We started talking about him. The funny and crazy experiences we'd had with him...walking him to the groomer strapped into a baby walker...Angela sleeping all night at the bottom of a tree that he was stuck in. In all of that there was strong, painful emotion. We didn't want to lose him, we castigated ourselves for not enjoying him more, and in the days that followed I found both of us deliberately spending more time with Snickers. The typical cuddling and petting that he loves took on a greater urgency as I was determined to appreciate him while we still had the time.<div><br /></div><div>A few weeks ago I met James Lantz. He is a professor, a playwright, a father and a husband. He wrote a play called 'The Bus". It was received so well that he was invited to take it to an off Broadway theater in New York for a few months. "The Bus" is about two young men, their relationship, and the tragedy of social pressure on gay relationships. James decided that he wanted to also try to take the play to Topeka and perform it in close proximity to my family so he asked me to read the play and perhaps support his efforts. I read it and I wept.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not long ago I came across an interesting article that explained the latest scientific discoveries about how the brain responds to ideas that are contrary to our existing beliefs. It seems that the emotion part of our brain responds more than a half second before the logic part kicks in. It seemed to support the idea that we are prone to find justification for a belief, and defend it for emotional reasons, before we will look unflinchingly at any evidence that challenges it.</div><div><br /></div><div>What do these three different topics have in common? Well, I'm still trying to work that out. I know that all my life I have led with my emotions. I know that it is the things that I feel that cause me to make changes in my life. And it seems to me that it's something worth considering and pointing out on this topic of gay rights. </div><div><br /></div><div>When James flew to Calgary to meet with me we spent several hours just talking, getting to know each other. He told me some of the things that motivated him to write "The Bus" and one of the issues he raised was this spate of suicides by gay people last year. I had the thought then that we spend so much time making cerebral arguments about the pros and cons of bringing ourselves out of the dark ages and finally treating another group of people in our society equally. But do we ever talk openly and publicly about the struggle to live life as a gay person? Do we consider the incredible effort and energy that the best of them must expend just to feel okay about themselves? </div><div><br /></div><div>It's easy to get people's attention when five or six young people take their lives because they can't imagine continuing that battle. But what about the thousands and thousands who continue the fight, ever hopeful that one day, the world will get it: This is not an issue to vilify people over! There is zero evidence to suggest that we are threatened or harmed by this lifestyle, Yet we persist in scapegoating them and pointing to their differences as the cause of all our woes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Something has to touch our hearts. Something has to stir our emotions and cause real, lasting change in the ideals that we embrace. Perhaps experiencing "The Bus" is one of those things. I spend my days asking this question over and over: What can I do to impact people and cause them to reconsider their prejudice toward the LGBT community? </div><div><br /></div><div>Here's something..."The Bus": <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/462972179/the-bus-off-broadway-and-westboro-baptist-church">http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/462972179/the-bus-off-broadway-and-westboro-baptist-church</a></div><div><br /></div><div>I think it would be a positive response for James to bring this drama to Topeka and help that community combat the heart of hatred that beats there at my father's home and church. Think for a moment about a young child sitting alone, in the dark, in their room. They have encountered my family's message of divine hatred for who they are and they are afraid and hopeless. There are enough messages, both overt and subtle, in their lives to help reinforce the unthinkable, that they don't have a right to be who they are. Whatever it takes, pause for a moment and imagine that suffering. Now imagine what you can do to improve the heart and mind of that child. Imagine supporting James Lantz and "The Bus". Do something good while you still can.</div><div><br /></div><div>Snickers just came over and rubbed himself against my black pants. Now I gotta get all the damn hair off...what a pain in the @#$! On the other hand, I think I'll stop here and spend a few minutes with him while I still can.</div>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-45454633526205986902011-05-31T08:15:00.005-06:002011-05-31T12:02:26.082-06:00The Duplicity of WBCIn a recent news story on CNN (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/30/arlington.cemetery.protesters/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/30/arlington.cemetery.protesters/index.html</a>) my youngest sister Abigail made this comment regarding KKK members counter protesting their presence at Arlington National Cemetary: "People like them say it's white power...white supremacy. The Bible doesn't say anywhere that it's an abomination to be born of a certain gender or race."<div><br /></div><div>From my perspective this is a study in deceit and duplicity.</div><div><br /></div><div>First of all, my father taught us from infancy that the black race was cursed by god. This passage from Genesis 9 was his justification:</div><div><br /></div><div></div><blockquote><div>And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.</div><div><br /></div><div>And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be hisservant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.</div><div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div>This passage was used by my father to demonstrate that the black race was cursed of god and justifiably enslaved. </div><div><br /></div><div>Much is made of the fact that my father was a civil rights attorney in the late 60's and 70's. Surely someone who worked for the equality of blacks can't be so bad. Again, from an insiders point of view, this argument doesn't wash. While my father did a tremendous amount of good in defense of equality for blacks, this was not evidence of his real attitude toward them. In addition to his Bible based prejudice, he made no bones about how he really felt toward them when he was around his family. It was not uncommon at all for my father, as well as his children, to refer to black clients in his office as "DN"s (dumb niggers), even in their presences. His southern upbringing surely informed his practiced disdain for the black race, but no doubt it was bolstered and entrenched by his interpretation of the bible as well.</div><div><br /></div><div>Abby also references gender in her comment. As I've often mentioned, my father made it crystal clear that women were second class citizens in the eyes of god. Women were to keep silent, they were to cover their heads in church and they were to keep their hair uncut. Women were to be in subjection to their husbands and husbands were entitled to, no, required to use whatever means necessary to bring them back into subjection if they strayed. My father demonstrated his eager willingness to obey that commandment over the years by physically beating his wife and, at one point, coarsely chopping off her hair when he found her submission lacking. Eve had been deceived by a snake and was therefore lower in the eyes of god and my father.</div><div><br /></div><div>Lest someone inject here that they are not practicing true Christianity, I would point out that the Old Testament is replete with admonishments about the status of women and Paul gleefully reinforces the idea throughout his letters to the early church.</div><div><br /></div><div>Let's take a moment to consider Abigail's words a little closer. Note that she doesn't come right out and say that blacks and women aren't inferior to white men. She asserts that the Bible stops short of calling them an abomination. It's subtle if you aren't paying attention, but makes a powerful difference in understanding the real teachings of Fred Phelps and the WBC. Homosexuality is an abomination, god is REALLY pissed at them. But there is a kinder, gentler prejudice that they reserve for colored brethren and the fairer sex. Fred's god will accept them, at least in theory, so long as they don't get to uppity and know their place in the divine hierarchy. </div><div><br /></div><div>One final thought that is only tangentially relevant in that the topic came up in the article. A counter protester was quoted as saying "It's the soldier that fought and died and gave them that right to free speech". Perhaps someone can correct me if my logic is flawed, but this argument has always bothered me as a justification for outrage at their protests of military funerals. If we're arguing that the right to free speech is intact because of the sacrifices of these soldiers, then are we not obliged to step aside and let such protests happen unchallenged? Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not arguing in favor of protests at ANY funeral. I'm simply suggesting that this particular argument is not well conceived and should be dropped from the arsenal of counter protesters. Protesting at funerals is wrong for many reasons. I'm not sure that this is one of them.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, my family hates homosexuals. In spite of Abby's words, they also hold women and blacks in similar low esteem. If they are going to insult the world with their hateful theology, I believe they have a duty to minimize the deceit and let the world see the unvarnished truth of just how profound and insidious that hate is.</div>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.com30tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-27300139859390551632011-05-09T11:31:00.003-06:002011-05-09T12:14:28.588-06:00Super, Natural Kamloops, British ColumbiaI was reminded of the current marketing slogan for British Columbia as our plane descended into the Kamloops airport. As the Thompson River passed beneath, "Super, Natural British Columbia" seemed just about right. <div><br /></div><div>The Kamloops Centre for Rational Thought held their first ever major conference this past weekend, entitled "Imagine No Religion". I was invited to speak at the conference and it was a remarkable experience. Bill Ligertwood and his wonderful group of volunteers went out of their way to make the event a great success.</div><div><br /></div><div>I was honored to meet and spend time with fellow presenters PZ Myers, Brian (Mr. Deity) Dalton, Jen "Boobquake" McCreight, Christopher DiCarlo, Stuart Bechman, and Justin Trottier.</div><div><br /></div><div>There were some great highlights, but to try to list them here would leave the wrong impression that I didn't learn something important from every one of the presentations. PZ opened and closed the conference with timid presentations on evolution and dead gods. Justin discussed the growth and direction of organized freethought, Jen challenged the movement to consider the benefits of including the wealth of information available from women and minorities, Chris offered tremendous insight into why we think and act the way we do, Stuart discussed the history and roots of modern scientific inquiry and Mr. Deity gave us much needed insight into the mind of Him whose ways are past finding out.</div><div><br /></div><div>The crowd was, in short, amazing. One guest presented me with a beautiful, hand crafted, silver book marker. Another one gave me a provocative T-shirt from the Saskatoon Freethinkers and near the end of the conference Bill presented all the speakers with a bottle of "Blasted Church, Big Bang" wine from a nearby Okanagan winery. Don't think that didn't take some explaining at airport security.</div><div><br /></div><div>As the director of the Centre for Inquiry in Calgary, I make much of the importance of creating social systems within our growing community...providing regular opportunities for those in the atheist/freethinker/skeptic community to connect and interact. As West Jet climbed homeward I reflected on how grateful I am to be involved in such a community. The immoral, deviant atheist that my father imagined is as much a figment of fevered mythology as the gods and demons of his blind faith. The people of Kamloops Centre for Rational Thought are as thoughtful, kind, caring and giving a people as you will find, and I am better for having met and interacted with them.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08273722322533935742noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-83903633827557008042011-04-05T08:33:00.005-06:002011-04-05T09:17:28.513-06:00This Is The World I Live InI suppose it was inevitable that I would inadvertently "friend" people on Facebook who are allied with the ideology of my family. Louis Theroux's new documentary about my family was the impetus for just such a contact recently. Rather than describe it, I'll just republish the back and forth. Just to clarify, there is one other young lady, also a devout Christian, who challenges the original poster. To protect their anonymity, I'll call the original poster "Mary" and the other lady "Linda"<br /><br />The thread starts with a link to the new documentary and this comment from "Mary". Spelling and punctuation have been preserved to provide whatever insight it may:<br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>THe WBC church reminds me of the way the christian church used to be in the past</blockquote><br /><br />Me: <blockquote>Which past "Mary"? The Crusades, the Inquisition, The Salem Witch Trials? The truth is we have very little understanding of the Christian church in the past and we certainly don't have any evidence that this one version of one religion is the one path to the one god.</blockquote><br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>THe bible is the same as today as yesterday if you do not live by the bible you will go to hell</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">At this point, I had just finished reading an excellent article by Chris Hitchens in Vanity Fair. The article, in part, addressed this very assertion.</span> </span><br /><br />Me: <blockquote>Here's a link to a current article that puts the lie to that comment "Mary": http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105<br /><br />This is just a drop in the bucket. There are libraries of information out there that demonstrate conclusively that the bible has changed profoundly and deliberately throughout it's 1900 years of existence in some form or another.</blockquote><br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>I do not believe in the stuff what comes from man kind I know it is a lie anytime you get to know the Humanist they turn out to be just like what the wbc church says about them the bible was written by god and it is the oldest book in the world</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">FACEPALM!</span></span><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>but "Mary" you have to read it... and not trust fred phelps... He can lie as easy as any other man.... Nathan lived in that enviorment... he knows their doctrine...listen to him and then also read your bible and you can easily disprove any point the church makes</blockquote><br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>I can tell that fred phelps knows the bible with out looking it up because i know the christian religion and if you like nate phelps then you are not a believer in the bible</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>I do as well "Mary"... and their are many other christians that can do the same. I was in a class for spiritual formation at my christian college and we had a athiest in our class... and he could quote the scripture better than anyone since he had studied the bible over and over and over... Just because I like nate phelps doesnt mean I do not believe the bible.... In my class the athiest was converted after the class was over yet even if he was not... It is my duty as a christian to treat him kindly and set the SAME example christ would set not the example of satan<br /></blockquote><br />Mary: <blockquote>I think nate phelps was just a rebellion</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>maybe so.... every one has a right to their opinion... yet even as a athiest you are called to show him kindness and compassion because that is what christ call you to do... he doesnt call you to hate others he tells you to love your enemies and to feed them when they are hungry and to give them water when they thirst... he does not say bash them cuss them curse them.... like it or not KC NATE phelps was made in the image of GOD too.... hun... i can tell you have a wonderful heart and one that yearns for GOD... PLEASEPLEASE PLEAASE open the scriptures and find the real truth</blockquote><br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>steve drain says that if you love your neighbor, you will point out were he is wrong to let him do what he wants to is like hating your neighbor,</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">Steve Drain...there's a wellspring of original thought.</span></span><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>ok do you see how you are quoting other people and not the word of GOD... you are following man which makes them your idol... and you have a very jealous GOD.... the bible state yes you are to correct your neighbor but in doing so ---<br />Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.<br />did you see that./.... not word but GODS.... he tells us just the two of you... not picketing... calling someone out which is dishonoring... which is also talked about in the bible</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers over all wrongs.</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>Ephesians 4:32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.</blockquote><br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>they are showing commpassion to others</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>1 Corinthians 13:4-13 talks about love, what it is and what it is not. This forum is not just for those who believe in God and get into His Word, this applies to all who have been or are looking to fall in love.<br /><br />1 Corinthians 13:4-13<br /><br />4: Love is patient, love is kind. it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.<br /><br />5: It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.<br /><br />6: Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth.<br /><br />7: It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always preserves.<br /><br />8: Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>"Mary" is the church any of these when they picket????</blockquote><br /><br />Mary: <blockquote>well for me it led me back to church i have been attending for 6 months</blockquote><br /><br />Linda: <blockquote>my point is proven do not go by the word of steve drain go by the word of GOD "Mary"... look in cor for yourself what love is the apostle paul defines love clearly... or google love in the bible to pull up scripture.... it will take you straight there.</blockquote><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;"><span style="font-style:italic;">So I'm watching this back and forth between the two young ladies and my head is about to explode from all the assumptions and logical fallacies. I finally decide to speak my piece and walk away from this conversation. I ended with this:</span></span><br /><br />Me: <blockquote>First of all "Mary", of COURSE I rebelled. The fact that I'm not there is by definition rebellion. You have much to learn in life and chief among them is to question the meaning of words. One of the most powerful tools used by people like my father is words. You hear words like rebel and the immediate perception is bad. The important question when you hear that term is: what did they rebel against? Is rebellion a proper response in the circumstance? It's a non-starter for you to dismiss someone by labeling them rebellious. GO DEEPER!<br /><br />As for "Linda's" point about rebuking, I would also urge you to read the process that Paul prescribes. Implicit in his words is the intuitive understanding that we all have in us that RELATIONSHIP is paramount in that process. Human's are tribal by their nature. Centuries of experience tell us to be slow to trust, to accept input only from those who are in a position of trustworthiness. It is utter nonsense for my family to suggest that they have the right to go around and blast total strangers, whom they know nothing about, over sins that they can only assume.<br /><br />Don't ever let someone's superior knowledge of a subject be the justification for accepting everything they say. Historically, men with a far greater understanding of the words of the Bible have drawn conclusions diametrically opposed to the conclusions of my father. That reason alone should give you pause in just accepting his dogma because "fred phelps knows the bible".<br /><br />Finally, you said that you 'do not believe in the stuff what comes from man kind". Do you hear yourself? Without any evidence to justify it, you have exalted the words of the WBC above "man kind". What are their words if not "stuff [coming] from man kind"? Is it because you assume they alone use the Bible for their words? If so, you have NO BUSINESS accepting a single thing they say until you have confirmed it INDEPENDENTLY for yourself, in the Bible. That DOES NOT mean asking them for the verses and blindly accepting their interpretation. It means you spending the necessary time studying it YOURSELF. Otherwise you are simply a parrot of another man's belief system.<br /><br />Make no mistake "Mary", I could care less what conclusions you draw on this subject or any other. What I do care about PASSIONATELY is that every person take responsibility to learn how to think critically and never, EVER accept something as truth without researching it themselves. It is that standard that led me away from the black and white, indefensible, hateful dogma of my father. That's what I rebelled against and I carry the label of Rebel proudly.</blockquote>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-14911551923625363542011-03-02T09:55:00.008-07:002011-03-03T08:03:30.106-07:00A Dissenting OpinionThe Supreme Court of the United States ruled today on the Snyder v. Phelps case. The 8 -1 majority opinion found that my family's pickets are protected speech under the First Amendment. I'm disappointed. The majority opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts explains that<br /><blockquote>Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. "[S]peech on 'matters of public concern'...is 'at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.'" The First Amendment reflects "a profound national commitment to the principal that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."</blockquote><br />He further explains that<br /><blockquote>Deciding whether speech is of public or private concern requires us to examine the "'content, form, and context'" of that speech, "'as revealed by the whole record.'" As in other First Amendment cases, the court is obligated "to 'make an independent examination of the whole record' in order to make sure that 'the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.'"</blockquote><br />Ultimately the Court argues that the specific language of the signs: <blockquote>While [they] may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight - the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of oru Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy-are matters of public import.</blockquote> As such, they are entitled to First Amendment protection.<br />Concerning Al Snyder's contention that the context of the speech - at his son's funeral - makes the speech a matter of private rather than public concern. The Court responds: <blockquote>The fact that Westboro spoke in connection with a funeral, however, cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro's speech. Westboro's signs...reflect the fact that the church finds much to condemn in modern society. Its speech is "fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern," and the funeral setting does not alter that conclusion.</blockquote><br />As I'm reading the opinion I keep thinking that something is missing. The Court has, in my opinion, made the same error as the Appellate Court before them. No serious consideration is given to the right of a person to bury a loved one in peace. Then I get to Justice Alito's diseenting opinion and there it is.<br /><br />Justice Roberts makes much of the duty of the Court to consider "the whole record" in determining the nature of the speech and whether it concerns public matters. Buried in the body of his dissenting opinion Justice Alito sheds light on a critical aspect of the Court's thinking.<br /><br />A part of my family's protest surrounding the death of Matthew Snyder was the online post they made a few days after picketing his funeral. The title of the post was "The Burden of Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. The Visit of Westboro Baptist Church to Help the Inhabitants of Maryland Connect the Dots!" In that nifty little outburst of inscribed drivel the language clearly abandoned "public issues", turning brutishly private and personal in nature:<br /><blockquote>God blessed you, Mr. and Mrs. Snyder, with a resource and his name was Matthew. He was an arrow in your quiver!...you raised him for the devil. Albert and Julie RIPPED that body apart and taught Matthew...to divorce, and to commit adultery...They also...taught Matthew to be an idolater.</blockquote><br />How could the Court possibly rule that this language concerned a public issue? Well, as Justice Alito explains, they didn't bother. Footnote #15 explains:<br /><blockquote>The Court refuses to consider the epic because it was not discussed in Snyder's petition for certiorari.</blockquote><br />A critical aspect of the case at both the District and Appellete Court level, and the Supreme Court excludes it on a technicality?!? Alito explains the error of that decision:<br /><blockquote>The epic, however, is not a distinct claim but a piece of evidence that the jury considered in imposing liability for the claims now before this Court. The protest and the epic are parts of a single course of conduct that the jury found to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress. The epic cannot be divorced from the general context of the funeral protest. The Court's strange insistence that the epic "is not properly before us." means that the Court has not actually made "an independent examination of the whole record". And the Court's refusal to consider the epic contrasts sharply with its willingness to take notice of Westboro's protest activities at other times and locations.</blockquote><br />It has been my contention all along that protesting at a funeral is unconscionable. For the Court to give greater consideration to Free Speech, at the expense of a citizen's right to bury a loved one in peace, is a dangerous travesty of justice.<br />Mr. Snyder's attorney argued that letting my family by with the hateful, personal attacks on vulnerable private citizens simply because they ALSO are expressing their ideas on public matters was bad law. From this language: <blockquote>I fail to see why actionable speech should be immunized simply because it is interspersed with speech that is protected,</blockquote> Alito clearly agrees.<br />I have argued before that the founding fathers likely never imagined the possibility that someone would ever think it was okay to picket the funeral of a private citizen. If ever there was a just reason to limit the time and place that a person can exercise their First Amendment right to free speech, this would be it. The Court sidesteps their responsibility on this point by suggesting<br /><blockquote>that the wounds inflicted by viciosu verbal assaults at funerals will be prevented or at least mitigated in the future by new laws that restrict picketing within a specified distance of a funeral.</blockquote><br />Justice Alito points out that<br /><blockquote>The real significance of these new laws is not that they obviate the need for IIED protection. Rather, their enactment dramatically illustrates the fundamental point that funerals are unique events at which special protection against emotional assaults is in order. At funerals, the emotional well-being of bereaved relatives is particularly vulnerable. Exploitation of a funeral for the purpose of attracting public attention "intrud[es] upon their...grief, and may permanently stain their memories of the final moments before a loved one is laid to rest. Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undremine public debate.</blockquote><br />Well, at least he gets it. In my opinion, the Court dropped the ball today. It shows the inherent weakness in our system of justice when a critical barrier to the decision they wanted to render, the epic, is so easily shunted aside with a bit of judicial slight of hand. The Court had the opportunity to balance the free speech rights with another de facto right to mourn a death in respectful privacy.<br />Justice Roberts concludes the majority opinion with these thoughts:<br /><blockquote>Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and-as it did here-inflict great pain.</blockquote><br />What he didn't say is that the majority of the Court today decided to ignore those tears and unnecessarily foist that pain on citizens in the future.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-29448157667072656772011-02-20T11:15:00.003-07:002011-02-20T11:41:34.396-07:00Love Is Wise, Hatred Is FoolishIn the later years of his life the British philosopher Bertrand Russell was asked: What would you think it’s worth telling future generations about the life you’ve lived and the lessons you’ve learned from it? His reply follows:<br /><br /><blockquote>I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say is this: When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts. That is the intellectual thing that I should wish to say.<br />The moral thing I should wish to say...I should say <span style="font-weight:bold;">love is wise, hatred is foolish</span>. In this world which is getting more closely and closely interconnected we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way and if we are to live together and not die together we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.</blockquote><br /><br />It has been my experience that hating is often a learned behavior that our brain justifies and protects. It takes a deliberate, conscious effort to challenge the assumptions and paradigms of our minds and weed out those that embrace hatred toward others. When I consider the words of Bertrand Russell I'm struck by a sense of urgency. Rather than talking about it, rather then hearing his words and nodding my head in agreement, I'm compelled to revisit my beliefs, challenge them again in this new light. <br /><br />Hatred cannot be viewed as a benign irritation, but rather the enemy of our very existence. We must not only continue down the path of tolerance and love, but hurry along with renewed determination. Challenge ourselves, test our beliefs, ferret out the myths that bind us to our prejudices and exclusive thinking. But we can't leave it at the level of thought. We must translate those thoughts into actions and deeds. We must create social memes that shun the underlying ideologies of hatred. We must cease the foolishness.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-59697741637951903952010-12-16T09:39:00.000-07:002010-12-16T10:06:54.193-07:00Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary EvidenceI received an email from a visitor to my website recently. The young man informed me that he had actually taken the opposite journey that I have in my life. He had been raised in a fairly non-religious home, but in his adult life had come to embrace Calvinism as the truth about God. We agreed to have a back and forth discussion, debate if you will, over this issue. Perhaps we could learn something from each other.<br /><br />I sent my initial communication and, in due time, he responded with a lengthy discussion about his position. I was immediately struck by some of the language and tone of his thoughts and comments. That familiar flavor of profound distaste, visceral hatred for the "evil" elements in the world peppered his conversation. It demonstrated once again that to define the line between my father's natural inclination toward cruelty and hatred and the support for that way of thinking that comes from Calvinism, is no small challenge.<br /><br />When I finished reading his material for the first time, I had the thought that I should write back to him and change the direction of our discussion immediately or we would devolve into an ineffective dialog pretty quickly. but then I went back and started reading it again. Soon I was immersed in challenging various arguments and assumptions. Hours later I sent him an extensive response. But there was a niggling doubt tucked in the back of my mind. It wasn't long before he wrote back, irritated that several of my early comments didn't seem to address the specific point he had raised. Fair enough.<br /><br />I went back and reread his thoughts and my responses again. Soon it occurred to me that I should have acted on my initial instinct to begin with. So I wrote him back and apologized. Well, I'll just let you read my response to him, because it really gets to the point I wanted to make. I have made some changes to the actual content to protect his privacy and clarify my position better:<br /><br /><blockquote>"...I was thinking about the comments you made in your last email. That several of my responses didn't make sense in context. I apologize. Let me try to explain so we have a better chance going forward. <br /><br />As I was reading your initial arguments I found myself, again and again, thinking that your position only made sense if certain assumptions were made. From there I narrowed it down to realizing that I couldn't really accept the lions share of your position simply because it was based on the foundational assumption that the Bible is what it claims to be...the inerrant word of the Christian God. Many of the challenges I made encompass that issue. It would probably have been a much better idea for us to address the underlying assumptions first before we got into one interpretation of the Bible versus another. <br /><br />I know that topic was addressed to some degree in your first salvo, but not nearly to the extent that it needs to be if we're to ever discover a common ground to debate. If you're interested, I would suggest that we address that question first. What evidence do you have that the Bible is the word of God, other then the Bible. Why should we base our notion of eternal consequences on this book? <br /><br />Let me throw one more thought in here to give you more insight into my position. We hold certain beliefs within us about all sorts of things. The evidence for those beliefs are stronger in some cases and weaker in others. As well, in the context of our lives, the nature of the various beliefs are more important in some instances then others. We will never arrive at absolute certainty about all these various beliefs we hold, but I hold that the more important the belief ie, the more significance that belief has in the choices and actions we make in life, the closer we must come to having empirical justification for holding it. For example, if I believe that aliens are here on earth but don't really change the way I think or live to accommodate that belief, then it's really not that important that I pursue the "truth" of that belief to far. If I believe Bigfoot is possible, whether I can demonstrate it isn't too important since my belief doesn't extend beyond the thoughts in my head. <br /><br />On the other hand, if I believe that aliens are here and they have certain plans that threaten my life, it is incumbent on me to pursue and settle the objective truth of that belief before I uproot my family and move to a cave in Montana. I'm sure you understand my argument. <br /><br />Applying that idea to the question of God and theology, I can't make sense of accepting the "truth" of the Bible without overwhelming empirical evidence. After all, these issues tend to color every single aspect of our lives, both temporal and eternal. Especially in the case of my family, and the particular theology that they embrace. The same theology that you embrace. <br /><br />This quote by Carl Sagen speaks to the heart of this issue: "What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we would like to believe, not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard evidence rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." <br /><br />The prevailing evidence for God, any God, doesn't even try to reach that threshold. It's not enough to say that certain things can't be known except by faith. It isn't sufficient to raise the Jobian argument that the pot can't question the potter. Especially in light of the fact that so much of the evidence in support of God DOES try to conform to reason and logic. Paul was one of the greatest rhetoriticians (if that's even a word) that ever lived. The very fact that every argument for God ultimately ends with an assertion like Martin Luther's, "My dear Erasmus, your thoughts of God are too human" proves that such a position is ultimately untenable. It begs the argument, if I'm incapable of comprehending God, then so are you. <br /><br />So what we're left with is nothing more then yours or my "moral certainty" that we just know something is true. And that's fine, so long as we don't try to order our lives around such a weakly supported belief.</blockquote><br /><br />Suffice it to say that the more I contemplate these issues, the more certain I am that any dogmatic position in life is ultimately untenable and potentially dangerous. Believe what you will, but the more a belief informs your words and deeds, the more it should be held to the rigors of Sagen's tenet: Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com26tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-57960031251557138572010-10-06T13:25:00.002-06:002010-10-06T13:36:54.627-06:00Is Suicide A Result of Atheism/Secularism?I recently received a message from a friend on Facebook. This came a day or so after the fourth suicide of a young gay man was reported within the previous week or so. Much was being made of this tragic trend and I had just reposted a short video message that Ellen Degeneres had sent out about the matter. I certainly don't want to embarrass my friend so I've reviewed his comment carefully and removed any information that might identify him. I promise you the character and content of his argument has remained intact as it was offered:<br /><br /><blockquote>Hi Nate, you know I think you are a very Smart man, and I respect you. I guess I don’t comprehend why you find it so hard to understand in today’s society That some young people see ending it all as a pliable option when met with one life’s many seemingly insurmountable challenges. In a secular society you tell him he is just a biological accident, he is jus one of thousands of species of animal, that is evolving. There is no creator that loves him enough to die for him. He has no God ordained purpose in this life. His goal in life is simply to pursue happiness, do what is rite for you. Then all the sudden something happens, and happiness is fleeting. And you feel nothing but pain. Your sure you will never be happy again,Without hope (faith), wanting to stop that pain, is a very logical conclusion, especially if it has no eternal ramifications. Where is the surprise? I think are going to see more and more of this sad sad event happening, with the direction our society seems to be taking. Buy the way this one is reguarding a being gay issue, but it could be his Girlfreind left him or I did not make the football Team ect.ect. What do you think?</blockquote><br /><br />I read the missive to my fiancée and pondered it for several days before replying. This is what I wrote back to my friend. Again, I've redacted any personal information to protect his privacy:<br /><br /><blockquote>Hi xxxx:<br /><br />Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I wanted to dwell on what you said before I responded. You actually cover quite a lot of territory here. It's always difficult to respond effectively without being able to go back and forth until I'm sure I know exactly what your argument is. <br /><br />Since we're using this medium, I'll just say that I think the crux of your argument is that a faith in god is the ultimate justification for stepping away from thoughts of suicide. That it is the hope of a better eternity that will act to restore one's hope here on earth and pull them back from the edge...from ending it all.<br /><br />My initial thought is that, steeped in the pain of abuse, bullying, abandonment, debilitating physical pain, etc., a believer would find comfort in the idea of ending it so they can finally be in the peace and comfort promised in heaven. It's my personal opinion that the Catholic church recognized that very danger long ago and created the threat of eternal suffering for those who take their lives just to make sure they didn't go that direction. In other words, they recognized the inherent risk in an eternity based focus as opposed to a temporal one.<br /><br />Secondly, in order to assert the position you've taken, I think you would have to demonstrate that most, if not all, suicides were committed by non-believers. I don't know if such information even exists out there, but I'm confident that no one can make such an assertion successfully. Therefore, any argument that faith in god is the solution to the problem of suicide fails on the empirical evidence alone.<br /><br />Thirdly, sort of as a reverse argument to my first point, it is my own opinion today that since I don't hold out hope that there will be something better after my time on earth, I find the need to make this life relevant far more compelling then I ever did before. In other words, since this is all I have, my thoughts always bring me back to...make it as good as you can while you're here. This notion flies in the face of arguing that it's easier to kill myself if life becomes too difficult.<br /><br />I believe it is deeply ingrained in our "lizard brain" to stay alive. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence for this argument in the world. We don't gleefully run in front of cars. The rustling in the bushes sends us running the other direction for fear of being eaten. The essence of most of our instinctive fears lies in the concern that we will die. It is that force, more than any other, that prevents their being a much greater number of suicides among the human population. Consider the Jews in Nazi Germany. Up until they were thrown into ovens or gas chambers, in the most horrific physical and psychological pain, they clung to life.<br /><br />From that I would turn to what I see is the real issue that needs to be addressed in this specific case. I realize you argue this is a broader issue then homosexuality, but I think that's a red herring. The statistics show that young gay men are four times more likely to take their lives. A combination of youthful ignorance about the nature of life and the unceasing social judgement that takes many forms, including bullying and physical abuse, convinces way too many of these young men that they aren't worthy of life. Imagine for a moment that you lived in a world like that xxxx, that society told you something you were born with...something you had no control over (yes, I know that you will argue this point, but I am convinced homosexuality is as biological as black skin so I'll make this argument) brands you as less valuable than other humans.<br /><br />If you have trouble with this argument, take a moment to substitute black for gay because the exact same ratio of suicides existed among black people during the decades of racism in America. At the heart of this problem is not a belief in god, but old fashion human prejudice, how we treat others. I too worry that we will see more of these tragedies, I simply disagree with the cause and the solution that you propose. In fact, it is quite possible that one of the reasons behind some of these suicides is the certainty these young men carry in their heads that the christian god hates them and considers them worthless. <br /><br />In the face of relentless negative social messages, rejection by family members, notions of supernatural hatred, is it any wonder that so many young people look out into the future and see darkness? This is a problem that we can easily fix by turning our back on dark age mythology and embracing human kindness, greater empathy and education. This isn't a spiritual problem. The solution lies here on earth, in the hearts of men.</blockquote>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-22236456247428644462010-10-06T11:00:00.003-06:002010-10-06T11:02:24.286-06:00My thoughts on Snyder -vs- PhelpsI just received a private message from a friend on Facebook commenting on today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Snyder -vs- Phelps case. I wanted to share the response I sent to him:<br /><br />In the run up to today's oral arguments there has been an explosion of articles throughout the U.S. touting the unassailable right of people to exercise religion and free speech in America. However, one of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and address issues where two or more rights conflict in American society. <br /><br />In my five years in Canada, I've come to better understand this notion that with rights come responsibilities. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. But that's an aside. <br /><br />My own opinion on this matter flows from the certainty that no founding father could have imagined ever having to deal with people standing outside a funeral taunting the family and loved ones of the deceased. It is my hope that this is the reason the Court agreed to hear this case and that they will find good cause to protect the rights of mourners from the untimely exercise of free speech rights. <br /><br />In other words, the limitation of my family's right to speak freely and exercise their religion outside a funeral should not be viewed as an onerous burden on them or anyone else in our society. Nor should it be viewed as an intolerable erosion of our rights to free speech. There already exists a pantheon of exceptions to the right of free speech. If ever there existed a new, justifiable, restriction on free speech, it is this one.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-80253826962414155802010-04-11T09:41:00.002-06:002010-04-11T09:47:48.702-06:00Apparently I Can't Say It. You'll Have To Read It To Understand.I came across this article today discussing a professor's monograph on the subject of "language fraud" perpetrated by atheists. The gist of the article is summed up in the following two paragraphs from it:<br /><br /><blockquote>"USM Professor Emeritus Clayton Sullivan levels two arguments at atheism.<br /><br />First, it is impossible for the human mind to think about that which does not exist (the non-existent). Atheists deny God’s existence and then curiously launch into extensive discussions about God.<br /><br />Second, Sullivan states that atheists reveal their ignorance of grammar.<br /><br />“They don’t understand what a noun is,” Sullivan said. “To be meaningful a noun must have a referent (a denotation) to a person, place or thing. On the lips of an atheist the term God has no referent. No denotation. Thus, the word is meaningless. A language fraud.”</blockquote><br /><br />He does also throw in the tired argument that it's impossible to disprove the existence of anything, but that's an aside. Honestly, if that's what it's come to for the apologist crowd, it's time to come up with some new beliefs. Any fair discussion of the existence of gods cannot include such a deceptive argument. But on to the other two points...<br /><br />I've come across several versions of this argument in my brief career as a heathen. My friend Maria loves to call me out when I utter exclamations like "oh my god" or "lord help us". Her point being that I can't profess to not believe in something then invoke that same something in my language. To do so is to admit belief in it. <br /><br />I've also had several people try the argument that I can't argue that I don't believe something if I invoke that something in my argument for disbelief. That's a lot like what the learned professor is arguing in his second point above.<br /><br />At the risk of sounding like a novice in this area, let me give you my thoughts on these two points. <br /><br />First, as to the notion that "it is impossible for the human mind to think about that which does not exist", I don't understand how anyone could make that argument in good conscience. Perhaps we can't think accurately about that which does not exist, but clearly we have a remarkable capacity for dwelling expansively on things which don't exist. What about Zeus and the whole panel of gods and goddesses of ancient Greece and Rome. What about dragons and elves and Santa Claus. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that our IMAGINATION makes it exactly possible for the human mind to think about that which does not exist. Perhaps I need to read his paper to understand the nuances of this argument.<br /><br />Let's continue to the second challenge he offers. Bear in mind that terms like noun and grammar are just sounds we create to express certain ideas. They are not natural laws or physical laws that prove or disprove an argument. It's fine to argue that the use of certain words or ideas violate our rules for those words, but it says nothing about the argument we are invoking the words for. In other words, even if he is accurate saying we misuse the term "god" in arguing against his existence, it says nothing about whether god exists. Right here, it's time for the apologist to set this whole argument aside as a proof for god.<br /><br />One other point I would raise to counter his thesis. We are all born into this world of people, places and ideas. We didn't create them but we do have to live with them. One of the ideas that exists in our world is that there is a god outside our sensory capacity who runs things. What that looks like is different for each god posited. Again, that idea existed before we got here. We have no choice but to interact in a world with that notion. Our cultures and societies are saturated with the various expressions and nuances of that belief system. When someone decides to reject an idea or belief in the world they live in, they have no other way to express that rejection than to invoke it in their argument. If that violates some language specialist's idea of the proper use of a noun, well...it's just irrelevant to the important question of whether that "noun" exists. <br /><br />When we "launch into extensive discussions about god", it's because that's the only way we can, in this world, in this structure, debate the salient issue of his existence. What other way is their to challenge the idea of something existing without invoking the name and attributes attached to that something?<br /><br />Further, when I say things like "oh my god", it's ridiculous to suggest that this figure of speech, while it may have found it's origin in the belief in a god, has anything to do or say about whether I believe in him. To sing a song about Santa doesn't require a belief in Santa. Perhaps for the longer term, it is a good idea for me to eliminate such phrases from my language, but again it says nada, zip, zilch, about whether that thing exists.<br /><br />I'll tell you what Professor, as soon as you can bring some empirical evidence to the table for the existence of (that which cannot be named), I'll apologize for violating the technical definition of the term "noun". <br /><br /><br />I'm sorry, but I think his entire argument amounts to a weak, water-muddying, effort to provide the intellectually lazy, faithful, with ammunition. In fact, it all ultimately acts as proof against his first argument. Apparently we (he) can indeed think about something which doesn't exist. In this case, a decent argument.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com35tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-25749151628383767212010-03-06T11:53:00.005-07:002010-03-06T12:38:28.205-07:00When God IntervenesI was reading this article about the two security officers who were wounded during a shooting at the Pentagon:<br /><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501659_pf.html"><br />http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030501659_pf.html</a><br /><br />Angela keeps telling me I should quickly sit down and blog it when something stirs me up. This one stirs me up.<br /><br />I understand that emotions run high when a person is faced with a life or death situation...I really do. We come out the other side with this sense of elation and powerful feelings, especially about the fact that we survived. In the midst of those feelings we tend to say things that we wouldn't otherwise say. I get that. But the person reading this story doesn't feel those emotions. Well, they may feel something akin to them if they've had a similar experience or if they are strongly empathetic.<br /><br />But something about this has always bothered me. This appealing to divine intervention because we survived a potential tragedy. First of all it implies that the person who received the divine intervention was worthy of god's personal interest. Second, it implies that all those people, in all places, at all times, who DIDN'T survive their own brush with death were somehow not worthy of god's protection. Or worse, that they were deliberately targeted by god for retribution.<br /><br />I recall in exquisite detail the reaction I had when O.J. Simpson publicly thanked god for his Not Guilty verdict in his murder trial. It infuriated me to think that he could deliberately slaughter (and slaughter is the only way to describe their deaths) Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman and then imply that they deserved it by invoking god.<br /><br />It's something that we do without thinking. "It's a miracle", "God intervened", "The lord shielded me". We should think about that before we say it. So he shielded you but he deliberately slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Haitians. He miraculously cured this one of cancer but stayed his hand when two boys massacred a school full of teenagers. What are the loved ones of those who die to think?<br /><br />By advocating such a position, we conversely support the notion that every tragedy, every death, is allowed by, if not caused by, god. REALLY?!?<br /><br />One other thought...if god was really there in that gun battle...Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent god had a dog in that fight...why'd he let them get wounded? Why not just take the shooter out with a passing motorist as he crossed the parking lot to the Pentagon?<br /><br />I'm glad they survived. I'm always happy to hear someone escaped tragedy and I'm always hurt when I hear someone succumbed. Invoking god does nothing to explain or improve the situation. It just causes more grief.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-40191940444652815902010-03-06T11:33:00.001-07:002010-03-06T11:39:03.090-07:00This blog has moved<br /> This blog is now located at http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/.<br /> You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click <a href='http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/'>here</a>.<br /><br /> For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to<br /> http://n8rphelps.blogspot.com/atom.xml.<br /> Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-84141852254759059732010-02-02T15:33:00.004-07:002010-02-02T16:30:39.896-07:00Stupid Is As Stupid Does...I pondered that line from Forrest Gump for months. What the heck does that mean I wondered. Then one day it hit me. Labeling someone doesn't really define who they are. Action, behavior over a long period of time, does a far better job of defining a person then a label. Labels are helpful in giving someone a stereotype laden snapshot of a person. Often the label is self imposed in an effort to positively effect a strangers perception of who we are. I'm a Republican. I'm a Volunteer. I'm a Doctor. <br /><br />Labels are stereotyping. Stereotyping is what we do to quickly assess risk and keep ourselves and loved ones safe. It is also misused constantly. It is an intellectually lazy behavior that keeps us from having to do the hard work of discovering who that other person really is.<br /><br />So where am I going with this? I touched on this issue in a previous blog entitled "The Real Bible". In it, I talked about the struggle that I have thinking that I have turned my back on GOOD:<br /><br />"A part of me still clings to this idea that what I turned my back on is actually goodness. Deep inside me I still accept the premise that to reject this system of belief is to throw my lot in with the contemptible, the unsavory. To reject Christ is to turn to the dark side.<br /><br />That's not to say that I deliberately, willfully made the choice with that in mind. It's more subtle then that, but still just as powerful. I've even argued with my mouth that my choice is not a choice against good and for evil, rather a choice to abandon mythology for rational thought." <br /><br />But I still worry. So I've given this a lot of contemplation. We are born into the belief system of our parents or guardians. This system includes ideas of good and bad, right and wrong. For many of us in the West the notion of good and evil is inextricably bound to the notion of Yahweh -vs- Satan. There is little discussion or consideration of a middle ground. You either align yourself with Good (god) or Evil (Satan). I know these are generalizations, but I think they speak to the issue I have. <br /><br />So if you're going to choose good, you really have no choice but to choose god. That's the default good position in our world. If you even pretend to raise the notion of evil, words like Satan, Witchcraft, Idolatry and Atheism are quickly brought to mind. It's what we are taught to believe. Most folks don't have the time or inclination to question these ideas. If you say you're an Atheist, you might as well say you are anti-good or pro-Satan because that is EXACTLY what people hear.<br /><br />But what is the truth? Or, at least, what is closer to reality? Atheists simply reject the idea that goodness has to be bound to a god. I don't know, nor have I ever read of, a single person who would call themselves atheist as a way to renounce good. It is simply not true. Atheists deny the notion of a god. They embrace the notion of good and evil. They embrace the majority of social ideals of good and evil. To a person, they accept and live by some version of the Golden Rule. They just don't give credit for the Rule to a god.<br /><br />I recently read an article by Steven Pinker. His paper was written in response to a question put forth by the Templeton Foundation: Does science make belief in God obsolete? Early on he explains: <br /><br />"Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?"<br /><br />He has much to say about each of this questions but what really struck me was his argument about the origin or basis of morality:<br /><br />"This leaves morality itself - the benchmarks that allow us to criticize and improve our moral intuitions. It is true that science in the narrow sense cannot show what is right or wrong. But neither can appeals to God. It's not just that the traditional Judeo-Christian God endorsed genocide, slavery, rape, and the death penalty for trivial insults. It's that morality cannot be grounded in divine decree, not even in principle. Why did God deem some acts moral and others immoral? If he had no reason but divine whim, why should we take his commandments seriously? If he did have reasons, then why not appeal to those reasons directly?"<br /><br />I believe that each of us has to stop and think about this issue when we hear the word Atheist. Rather then take the lazy route and dismiss the person as lost or evil or morally bankrupt, take the time to consider the merits of this argument. People can be, and have been, moral and good without god. To embrace atheism IS NOT to embrace the dark side. Conversely, to embrace god is not necessarily to embrace good. It comes down to deeds. <br /><br />It is no wonder that there is such animosity so often between atheists and religious folk. But there need not be. Consider the complete person, their body of deeds before deciding if they are stupid, good, or evil.<br /><br />Stupid is as stupid does...<br /><br />Good is as good does...<br /><br />Evil is as evil does...Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-77187704738580067552009-12-10T09:31:00.002-07:002009-12-10T09:58:57.908-07:00You gotta have faith!I was talking to my friend in California recently. Maria is a Christian. In many ways she is the closest thing to a "real" Christian that I know. By that I mean that Maria struggles constantly to avoid the verbal facade of Christianity while engaging in behavior that she believes is consistent with what it means to be a Christian.<br /><br />But Maria is human too. By that I mean that we always tend toward ideas and beliefs that support our foundational perceptions of the world. Maria is no exception. <br /><br />So back to my story. Maria and I were talking and she suddenly announced to me that she really envied my capacity for faith. When I asked her what the hell she was talking about, she told me that she believed it required far more faith for me to believe that we all evolved from apes or primordial ooze then it took to believe that we were created.<br /><br />One more quick aside before I continue. It was here in our conversation that I refer to when I say that we tend toward ideas that support our fundamental beliefs. What I mean is, Maria gets her arguments by attending church and meetings with like minded people. In those environments the memes of the group infect them all. That's not to say that they necessarily can support the belief, just that they are quickly, efficiently exposed to all the latest "defenses" of their belief.<br /><br />So, my response. Any time I hear an argument like this, my instinctive reaction is that it stinks. Maybe that's my own prejudice, my own defensiveness of my belief system. Maybe it's an awareness, not yet defensible, that the argument is inherently weak. Whatever the case, I generally will hold my tongue until I have the time to explore the argument and test it's validity.<br /><br />I could throw terms like "false analogy" or "red herring" or "straw man fallacy" out, but I think I'd rather try to explain it in simple terms. I said to Maria that my acceptance of the theory of evolution was based on the opposite of faith. The scientific process is the antidote to mythology. Before humans contrived the rules of scientific discovery, we were subject to the untestable notions of those we elevated to positions of leadership. In spite of the underlying motives, the effect of creating policy based on faith in something have proven disastrous throughout human history.<br /><br />My belief in evolution rests on the mountain of evidence that supports it. Only on that. And I don't defend it beyond that. That is to say, if another theory evolved that eventually dismantled evolution by natural selection, I would not hesitate to turn my back on the flawed notion and embrace the new belief until such time that new science dismantled it. <br /><br />Now consider the difference between a faithless acceptance of scientific proof and a belief in something that only exists because I profess faith in it. In other words, there is nothing anywhere at anytime for any people that supports the idea of the existence of a god except the unsupportable, concocted framework of men without an ounce of demonstrable cause and effect fact.<br /><br />To believe in evolution you gotta have a testable hypothesis that lets you predict outcomes accurately and lets you repeat the results of tests successfully over and over again. Nowhere in the equation does faith enter in.<br /><br />To believe in god you gotta have faith.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-17228314655409211142009-07-03T09:10:00.002-06:002009-07-03T09:40:26.148-06:00Repent!<span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" >I got an email on my website the other day. The message was concise and to the point:
<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Repent"</span>
<br />
<br />In the spirit of brevity I replied:
<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"For what?"</span>
<br />
<br />Within a day my mono-syllabic friend had countered with:
<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"athiesm, anti calvinism, the whole song and dance."</span>
<br />
<br />His relatively verbose response compelled me to an equally expansive reply:
<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Calvinism argues that the die was cast long before I was born. What sense would it make to repent?"</span>
<br />
<br />In a reply that can only be characterized as escalating, my theological friend had this to say:
<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">"Calvinism also argues the elect to come back, if then you are an elect repent. If not, then so be it, and God's hate abidith upon you."</span>
<br />
<br />Ah...there it is at last...the ultimate trump card. If you don't see things the way I do, God's hate abidith upon you.
<br />
<br />I have so many different thoughts about this remarkable dynamic. I once heard someone make the argument that sports is an outlet for social aggression. Our favorite football team steps onto the field to do battle with the enemy. The sports fan cheers his representative warriors to victory, screaming for them to kill the other guys. If that sports fan were to walk down the street and threaten to kill another individual, he would be arrested for assault. At the arena we are joyous in victory, crestfallen in defeat. But the violence within us is quenched for a time and society is safer. Or so the argument goes.
<br />
<br />It seems to me that religion sort of acts the same way. I have all this aggression in me but I don't dare tell someone to their face that I hate them and wish they would suffer eternally. But if I deflect it and make it about some big equalizer in the sky, I can tell you all day that god hates you and you will be punished for eternity. I feel better about myself and can dismiss you completely as another sentient creature.
<br />
<br />Any way, I digress from the story line. I thought about his reply for awhile and decided to ramp up the rhetoric. It's not that this poor fellow was the first to insult me with his simplistic, self-righteous, judgment. It's just that this one followed a more interesting path, so he gets the brunt of my anger.
<br />
<br />My reply:
<br /></span><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link style="font-family: arial; font-weight: bold;" rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CNathan%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:宋体; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -</style><span style="font-family: arial; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic;">"So it's a bit of a waste of my time and yours, not to mention incredibly presumptive, for you to tell me to repent. Your world view includes an entity that I have clearly indicated I don't believe exists. This is a belief that I arrived at after years and years of searching and agonizing. Were I to postulate the existence of, say, a dragon like creature inhabiting the catacombs of long dead volcanoes, you would justifiably demand extraordinary proof before you would accept my belief.
<br />
<br />It's fair for me to require the same of you. For you to circumvent that entire process and arrogantly demand that I repent...too whom would you have me repent? For what? Why? The answer to all those questions presuppose, assume, facts that are simply not in the evidence.
<br />
<br />I will repent to those real life people on this earth whom I have wronged. I will be held accountable to those in my life whom I agree to have such a relationship with. I will love those whom I love without the threat of eternal suffering as the impetus. I will NOT permit another moment of my life to be controlled by the fear of a mythical being.
<br />
<br />If you feel you have earned some special treasure in heaven by contacting me and making such a rude demand of me...well, that's unfortunate for you. Where do you plan to spend that treasure...Hypocrites-R-Us?</span><span style="font-style: italic;">"</span>
<br />
<br />I know that I have a tendency to become a bit caustic when my ire is raised. That's something I should repent for, but just now I don't much feel like it.
<br /><span style="font-size: 12pt;"></span></span>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-69822640454742263862009-05-25T14:29:00.005-06:002009-05-25T14:53:23.006-06:00Over the Top Fluffy Words<meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CNathan%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City"></o:smarttagtype><o:smarttagtype namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"></o:smarttagtype></span><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:宋体; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Richard Haynes' "Life Without Faith" website has been chronicling the salient events since I spoke at the American Atheist conference in April. Recently he featured a comment <a style="color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" href="http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=762"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=762</span></a> that my sister Shirley posted in response to my blog "Why Isn't That Man in Jail". <o:p></o:p></span></p> <span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Within a few hours of reading it I was so angry I sat down and wrote for several hours.<span style=""> </span>Then I walked away from it.<span style=""> </span>Over the next 24 hours my mind went from fury to uncertainty to fear to intimidation and self-loathing to an apathetic resignation that left me physically weak and depressed.<span style=""> </span>This is just one of the manifestations of growing up in that environment.<span style=""> </span>Every step of this journey I fight through some version of that cycle.<span style=""> </span>I’ve come to recognize it and am learning to work past.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">In that spirit, I offer the following point-by-point response to Shirley’s comments:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /><o:p></o:p></span></p> <blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">SHIRLEY: <span style="font-style: italic;">“The arrogance of this man. Every rebel has a sob story to justify their disobedience. Richard the rebel I’m sure has a story of his own that he would palm off. But alas, you change nothing!”</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">NATE: It’s not clear who “this man” is.<span style=""> </span>Maybe me, maybe Dr. Dawkins.<span style=""> </span>Regardless, it says nothing except that we have a difference of opinion. <span style=""> </span>To call someone disobedient is to imply an authority over them that you simply don’t have.<span style=""> </span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">I’m not trying to “justify” anything.<span style=""> </span>The WBC is quite active in telling people its message, and then letting others decide what the value of that message is.<span style=""> </span>I am, in turn, telling my side of the story, and letting people reach their own conclusions.<span style=""> </span>If those people conclude that I am a disobedient rebel, that’s their decision.<span style=""> </span>However, since the WBC seeks to preach “the truth”, why is it that you are so afraid of the truths that I am telling?<span style=""> </span>Why is it that so many responses from people in the WBC complain about “airing dirty laundry” or talking about “private family matters”?<span style=""> </span>If you truly are the voice of God, following in God’s footsteps, then surely you would have no objection to having your lives submitted to the light of public scrutiny?<span style=""> </span>These reactions seem to indicate the opposite; that you, and others in the family, fully recognize that the truth of the ‘inner workings’ of the Phelps household are shameful, and worthy of condemnation. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">Denying the rest of the world their story is the hallmark of why your “ministry” is an epic failure.<span style=""> </span>Your obstinate insistence that you’re right and the rest of the world is wrong has reduced your campaign to an international laughing stock.<o:p></o:p>
<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><blockquote><meta equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 10"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5CNathan%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:usefelayout/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:SimSun; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-alt:宋体; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} @font-face {font-family:"\@SimSun"; panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1; mso-font-charset:134; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 135135232 16 0 262145 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} p {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} </style> <![endif]--> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">SHIRLEY: <span style="font-style: italic;">“God set his standard in the earth. Fred Phelps was determined to serve God in truth. That means that you spank your children.” </span></span><o:p></o:p></p> </blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> </blockquote> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">NATE: Nobody said anything about spanking Shirley.<span style=""> </span>No reasonable, rational person would argue that a child should be left to their own devices, without discipline.<span style=""> </span>I don’t think I have ever used the term spanking in any of my writing or comments.<span style=""> </span>It is deliberately deceitful for you to use that term for what our father did.<span style=""> </span>I was careful in my speech to avoid words or phrases that might mischaracterize the nature of our father’s actions.<span style=""> </span>I simply related the specifics of what he did.<span style=""> </span>In fact, I only presented a small fraction of those specifics.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">In light of your efforts to soft peddle it, I’m obliged now to counter your characterization.<span style=""> </span>What our father did was violent child abuse.<span style=""> </span>His actions were criminal.<span style=""> </span>His actions today are a reflection of the same insensitive violence that he visited on his wife and children.<span style=""> </span>You can shroud his deeds in robes of righteousness, with “over the top fluffy words”, and the plain stench of it is still there.<span style=""> </span>He repeatedly, viciously beat us with that mattock handle, his fists, his knees, and his feet.<span style=""> </span>That’s plain English and that’s my indictment! Bring your bible and your formidable legal army.<span style=""> </span>It changes nothing.</span></p><p><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /><o:p></o:p></span></p> <blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-size:100%;">SHIRLEY: “The truth of the matter is that Nathan Phelps was determined that he would go after mischief and criminal mischief as he grew older, with both hands. A further truth is that the vast majority of his deeds were never known by his dad. The body of his crimes was so big that his closest siblings were left some days in jaw-dropping amazment [sic] at what he might think of next to do that he had NO BUSINESS DOING!! By ANY standard, you don’t do the things that Nathan did. I know, I was the next child up from him. I lived up close and had a front row seat to the trauma that was the dark heart of disobedience called Nathan Phelps.”</span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">NATE: Yes, I rebelled, and yes, I have done things that were wrong.<span style=""> </span>I know of no human being who can claim otherwise.<span style=""> </span>If you are arguing that this is the standard for determining the ‘truth’ of a claim, or the ‘right’ of a person to speak up, then our father – who abused drugs, and lost his license to practice law due to unethical practices – likewise deserves to be held to the same standards.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">You’re big on the whole “connect the dots” rhetoric Shirley so let me speak in your own language for a moment.<span style=""> </span>Please connect the dots between our father violating our mother by chopping her hair off and my mischief.<span style=""> </span>Connect the dots between my misdeeds and the image of our sister Margie lying semi-conscious at the back of the church while our father repeatedly kicked her and brandished a frying pan over her head.<span style=""> </span>Connect the dots between my misconduct and the distended lump at the top of your leg caused by the “spankings” you received from our father.<span style=""> </span>Please Shirley, set your bible aside for a moment and lets play a little game of connect the dots.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">Oh, one other point that may be lost on our readers.<span style=""> </span>You mentioned that the old man wasn’t aware of “the vast majority” of my misdeeds.<span style=""> </span>Why is that Shirley?<span style=""> </span>In fact, why is it just as true that the vast majority of all our misdeeds were kept from our father?<span style=""> </span>That’s not the behavior of a loving, properly functioning relationship between a man and a woman.<span style=""> </span>Perhaps so much was kept from our father because our mother was terrified of his violent over reactions.<span style=""> </span>Try finding some bible verses to support that. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">SHIRLEY: <span style="font-style: italic;">So at the end of the day, you can multiply words and you can call the standards of God cruel, but you are just another rebel that will spend eterntiy in hell.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">NATE: The Bible tells me that I should stone a woman who has a child out of wedlock.<span style=""> </span>Would you support that Biblical standard, Shirley?<span style=""> </span>What of our father’s beliefs that not only is homosexuality wrong, but that homosexuals should be put to death?<span style=""> </span>That’s a side of ‘the message’ that you tend not to proclaim so publicly…why is that?<span style=""> </span>The Bible says that murdering unarmed women and children is fine, as is taking virgin women as slaves.<span style=""> </span>How exactly should we apply that Biblical standard to modern times?</span></p><span style="font-size:100%;">
<br /></span> <blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;">SHIRLEY: <span style="font-style: italic;">However, you should STOP lying about these matters. Further, if you truly want an answer to why Fred Phelps is not in jail for properly raising his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord their God, well - that would be because it is not a crime to do that. Just because you have reached a day where your rebellion is full of over the top fluffy words where you call a spanking child abuse or where you whip out selective memory about events to justify your disobedience, you change nothing. Nathan did leave when he was 18 because he was not going to obey. Good. He had to do that. Then, I bet he left out the part in his little story where he came back.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">NATE: As to your charge of lying.<span style=""> </span>You have an army of lawyers at your disposal Shirley.<span style=""> </span>If I have lied, utilize them.<span style=""> </span>Otherwise, dispense with the vacuous rhetoric.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">And…”over the top fluffy words”?!?<span style=""> </span>Is that kind of like being a wordsmith?<span style=""> </span>The very title our father so eagerly embraces. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">And what of this charge of “selective memory”?<span style=""> </span>Do you mean to say that there are other memories that, in combination with these, justify or excuse our father’s abuses?<span style=""> </span>That his ‘success’ in the legal practice justifies beating us with his fist and a mattock handle?<span style=""> </span>That the times he was nice to our mother justifies brutally chopping off her hair?<span style=""> </span>Your very statement that it is a ‘selective memory’ belies your claim that what I say is not true.<span style=""> </span>If Fred Phelps is the man of god that you claim, then neither you nor anyone else in the family should object to having the truth of our childhood told publicly.<span style=""> </span>You are, of course, welcome to add whatever other information that you feel may ameliorate or justify his actions; but denying them is an act of deceit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">One final item deserves a response.<span style=""> </span>You mentioned the fact that I came back. You’ve raised that issue before and once again, I’m puzzled.<span style=""> </span>You raise the issue as though you think that mitigates the truth of me leaving on my 18<sup>th</sup> birthday.<span style=""> </span>I’m not sure how.<span style=""> </span>Do you perceive that as a lie of omission?<span style=""> </span>Does my having come back for a time demonstrate that our father wasn’t abusive?<span style=""> </span>I’m honestly confused.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">However, I do think it’s fair to the reader to address that issue since you’ve raised it.<span style=""> </span>In 1979, nearly 3 years after I left, I began communicating with you and Margie.<span style=""> </span>My brother Mark and I had started our first print shop in <st1:place><st1:city>Prairie Village</st1:city>, <st1:state>Kansas</st1:state></st1:place>.<span style=""> </span>Mark had been forced to leave the operation of the business to me because of a threat of legal action by his former employer.<span style=""> </span>Mark moved back to <st1:city><st1:place>Topeka</st1:place></st1:city> and started another shop there while I attempted to run the first location on my own.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">I was living alone in the <st1:city><st1:place>Kansas City</st1:place></st1:city> area and struggling with that isolation.<span style=""> </span>You and Margie began to suggest that I come back home, work in the law office, and go back to college.<span style=""> </span>The desire to be connected to my family was very powerful.<span style=""> </span>And it should be noted, one very important aspect of that whole drama was the constant reassurance that both of you gave me that our father was no longer physically violent.<span style=""> </span>Eventually, I made the decision to return home.<span style=""> </span>That decision was very destructive to my relationship with my brother Mark.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:100%;">Once home, I learned very quickly that my work at the law office was not going to be compensated.<span style=""> </span>I had debt to service so I went out and found a job that was actually providing an income.<span style=""> </span>This violated my father’s expectations and created tremendous tension.<span style=""> </span>Although the violence did appear to be far less, my father had plenty of weapons in his arsenal to insure compliance.<span style=""> </span>Eventually he called a meeting to discuss my disobedience.<span style=""> </span>I refused to attend.<span style=""> </span>The outcome of that meeting was that I was required to leave…immediately.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;">Nothing about that chapter in my life speaks to the essence of the story as I’ve told it; except to highlight the fact that the only way that you were able to get me to come back was through promising that our father’s violence had decreased; a violence that you now seek to deny or justify.<span style=""> </span>If that violence were untrue, or were justified…then why would a decrease in that violence be a desirable thing?<o:p></o:p></span></p> Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com24tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-41146514380313727012009-05-20T07:30:00.002-06:002009-05-20T07:37:08.695-06:00Crushing on IdaHow many more discoveries our out there, yet to be made? This is what excites me.<br /><br /><br /><object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3nk9nwohqts&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3nk9nwohqts&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-87414956821464312502009-05-18T09:49:00.000-06:002009-05-18T09:54:31.764-06:00The most hated family in America<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-7735501683185935638&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-43002694857145691872009-05-18T09:47:00.002-06:002009-05-18T09:48:28.356-06:00Fall from Grace<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Km5IYHj1wn4&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Km5IYHj1wn4&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-60698140475622504692009-05-09T08:31:00.006-06:002009-05-09T09:32:51.973-06:00"The Real Bible"I just finished reading an essay by Robert Ingersoll entitled "About the Holy Bible". He wrote this back in 1894. I'm embarrassed to admit that, though I had heard his name many times over the years, I had never actually sought out his writings until recently. Ingersoll was one of my father's favorite targets behind the pulpit. Now I understand why.<br /><br />But that's not why I was compelled to write about him today. The essay is fairly long, repetitive in places, but one of those pieces that drew me in and stirred my heart. It's the same feeling I get every time I happen upon a new source that speaks so clearly the thoughts and ideas that are imprisoned in my mind. It is as though a door is finally opened and the truth is freed for me.<br /><br />Once again, I sat and wondered what it was about his writing that sparked such strong emotion in me. Today a new awareness came to me. These writings that create such powerful positive emotion in me have one thing in common. These men are confident and unrepentant in their beliefs. Whatever doubts they harbored about finally saying what must be said are put aside and they cry out with a loud, passionate voice:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself."<br /></blockquote><br />So begins Ingersoll's essay.<br /><br />I was left with the very strong impression that this man had worried over the consequences of his decision but ultimately concluded that he had no choice. Someone had to stand up against this great conspiracy of ignorance that has stained the path of humanity for the past two millennium. Not only does Ingersoll stand up, he erects an edifice of defiance against the hubiris of Christianity that has easily weathered the onslaught of myth-based bilious blather for over 100 years.<br /><br />But that's not even my real point to this blog.<br /><br />Near the end of his writing I found this:<br /><br /><blockquote>"Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible. <p> I will tell them: This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man. </p><p> This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants -- the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book funded the Inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane. </p><p> This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave- mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns -- with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another -- to waste this world for the sake of the next. </p><p> I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty -- the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress. </p><p> Let me ask the ministers one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?"</p></blockquote><p></p>Much of this I immediately embraced as reflecting my own thoughts and beliefs. But there were new ideas, dangerous ideas, that left me uneasy. It's never a good idea to use phrases like "unclean saint" or "the pious and the useless". These are men and women of god who have...<br /><br />...wait.<br /><br />I went back and re-read it with fresh eyes and realized something profound about myself. A part of me still clings to this idea that what I turned my back on is actually goodness. Deep inside me I still accept the premise that to reject this system of belief is to throw my lot in with the contemptable, the unsavory. To reject Christ is to turn to the dark side.<br /><br />That's not to say that I deliberately, willfully made the choice with that in mind. It's more subtle then that, but still just as powerful. I've even argued with my mouth that my choice is not a choice against good and for evil, rather a choice to abandon mythology for rational thought. But the still, small voice is there and chaffs at arguments that would paint righteous Christians as "corrupted...hateful, cruel [or] ignorant."<br /><br />One of my greatest strengths and most profound weaknesses is that I want to give people the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Then Ingersoll delivers the coup de grace:<br /><br /><blockquote>"For thousands of years men have been writing the real Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy, of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination's world, the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light and shade, the marvelous marbles that seem to live and breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed sea. <p> All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life, all that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain -- all just and perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all thoughts that feed the flames of love the music that transfigures, enraptures and enthralls the victories of heart and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother-love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth, of all the best that all the men and women of the world have said, and thought and done through all the years. </p><p> These treasures of the heart and brain -- these are the Sacred Scriptures of the human race."</p><p></p></blockquote><p></p>I know it enough to say it. My brain understands the damage that myths have caused over the centuries. But a part of me still wonders, worries, struggles with the what if question. I suppose it is to be expected in the early stages of my journey. But reading the words of Ingersoll reminds me again, it is not to be accepted.Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-53686611144503785242009-04-23T09:27:00.002-06:002009-04-23T10:40:44.298-06:00Why Isn't That Man In Jail?After speaking at the American Atheist convention in Atlanta the first person to the mic for the Q&A session was Dr. Dawkins. The bottom line of his question: Why was my father still walking around a free man after all the violence he perpetrated on our family? My reaction was incredulity and a little bit of fear. It seemed so obvious to me, that I worried the rest of the audience would chuckle at Dr. Dawkin's naivety. But the fear part puzzled me.<br /><br />Grateful that Dr. Dawkins had even listened to my speech, I just let the uncomfortable nature of his inquiry slip into the background. A few hours after the speech, back in my hotel room, my fiance mentioned that she had spent a few minutes in discussion with Richard Dawkins after the speech. He was still agitated about my father and demanding to know how it was possible that he was still a free man. My fiance tried to explain it further. Later in the evening, in the lounge, I was introduced to Heidi Anderson. In our conversation she changed the flavor of the subject by pointing out that Dr. Dawkins was from England and things obviously were different there.<br /><br />A few days ago, a thread appeared on Richarddawkins.net linking to my published speech. Dr. Dawkins appeared in the comments section and once again raised the issue:<br /><br />"I heard Nate Phelps give this talk and was deeply moved by sympathy for Nate and a passionate desire to see Fred Phelps put behind bars for the rest of his nasty life. I asked various people why he has not been arrested for violent abuse of his family. The answers I got were rather unsatisfactory: a combination of "If you are sufficiently adept at manipulating the letter of the law, you can get out of anything" and "Anybody who calls himself 'Reverend' can get out of anything." I am reluctant to believe either of these explanations.<br /><br />Richard<span class="smallText">"<br /><br />This led to a number of other comments posted on the thread with variations on the same question.<br /><br />Let me try to explain from my point of view.<br /><br />It has been too long since the violence happened to me. The American legal system places time limitations on bringing charges against someone. I realize that begs the question of why didn't I do something sooner. Well, now we get into this whole area of the psychology of abuse. I can't say I'm an expert on it other then to tell you that every thought of vengeance that ever entered my mind was almost immediately dispelled by the certainty that I would die if I acted on it. Being severely beaten over and over, while at the same time being told that you deserve to be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death, does something to your mind. Remember, this is the person who is to define the world for you. The person who is to demonstrate the nature of life. The person who is to provide safety and security for a formative mind.<br /><br />I looked to my mother for protection from my father. When I was around the age of 6, my mother packed the kids into the car and ran away to her sister Dorthy in Kansas City. Her sister lived in a small walk up apartment in a poor area of town. Her home was filled to overflowing with all the children. I remember being sat down in her living room with the TV while my mother and aunt sat, shoulders slumped, drinking coffee in the kitchen. Even at that age, the sense of joy was strong in me that we weren't going to have to deal with that man again. In the end she went back. I can only imagine the impossible hurdle she faced being alone and unemployed with 10 or 11 kids at that point. I learned very quickly that she was just as defeated by his violence as any of the children. The very real threat of violence and even death was more then enough to keep his wife and children from seeking help from the outside. Any intervention would have to be instigated from without. <br /><br />In 1972 charges were brought against my father stemming from a particularly violent beating he administered to my brother Jon and myself. An excerpt from "Addicted To Hate" lays out the salient details of that:<br /><br />"</span>For the moment, however, it had gone beyond the pastor's control. Police detectives investigated the matter, and it was filed as juvenile abuse cases #13119 and #13120. Jonathon and Nate were assigned a court- appointed lawyer, as a guardian-ad-litem, to protect their interests. The assistant county attorney took charge of the cases, and juvenile officers were assigned to the boys. <p> In his motion to dismiss, the ever-resourceful Phelps filed a pontifically sobering sermon on the value of strict discipline and corporal punishment in a good Christian upbringing. "When he beat us, he told us if it became a legal case, we'd pay hell," says Nate. "And we believed him. At that time, there was nothing we wanted to see more than those charges dropped. When the guardian ad litem came to interview us, we lied through our teeth." </p> <p> Principals involved in the case speculate the boys' statements, along with superiors' reluctance to tangle with the litigious pastor, caused the charges to be dropped. The last reason is not academic speculation. The Capital-Journal has learned through several sources that the Topeka Police Department's attitude toward the Phelps' family in the '70s and '80s was hands off-this guy's more trouble than it's worth'. </p> <p> Three months later, the case was dismissed upon the motion of the state. The reason given by the prosecutor was "no case sufficient to go to trial in opinion of state". The boys were selling candy in Highland Park when they learned from their mom during a rest break the Pastor Phelps would not go on trial for beating his children. "I felt elated," remembers Nate. "It meant at least I wouldn't get beaten for that." </p> <p> But if Nate's life was so full of pain and fear, why didn't he speak up when he was at the police station and everyone was being so nice to him? Nate laughs. It's the veteran's tolerant amusement at the novice's question. "We'll do anything not to have to give up our parents," he answers. "That's just the way kids are. That's the way we were." "Besides, when it (abuse) occurs since birth, it never even crosses your mind to fight back," interrupts Mark. "You know how they train elephants?</p> <p> They raise them tied to a chain in the ground. Later, it's replaced by a rope and a stick. But the elephant never stops thinking it's a chain." The loyal Phelps family are of two minds on the case. Margie admitted it had occurred. Jonathon denied it. The pastor never decided. Instead, he launched into a lecture on the value of tough love in raising good Christians. </p> <p> Since their juvenile files were destroyed when the boys reached eighteen, but for their father's vindictiveness, there might have been no record of this case. As it was, he sued the school. This caused the school's insurance company to request a statement from Principal Dittemore, who complied, describing the events which led to the faculty's concern the boys were being abused. The suit was dropped."</p><p>What this excerpt doesn't detail is the level of intimidation that my brother and I faced from our father. When it came time for us to discuss the case with Tom Valentine, the attorney appointed to represent us (what a joke), my father spent hours pounding into our heads exactly what to say and what not to say. I remember the extreme dislike I felt toward Mr. Valentine because his presence threatened my physical safety. I no longer had the capacity to even recognize who was my friend and who was my enemy. I learned the outside world was impotent against my father.<br /></p><p>Dr. Dawkins asked me why I waited until 18 to leave. I thought I made that clear in my speech. My father had the legal right to do with us as he saw fit until we reached the age of legal independence. That age was 18. Ultimately my brother Mark succeeded in leaving because his efforts began AFTER he turned 18. My sister Kathy tried to leave when she was 17 and the violence he visited on her, after he found her and forced her home, was epic.<br /></p><p> There was no way in hell I was leaving before It was legal to be on my own. <br /></p><p>There was no way in hell I was staying after it was legal to be on my own.</p><p>That was the best I could do...until now. When asked why I'm speaking out against my father my thoughts always get muddled. It's impossible to pick a single motive or even identify, honestly, all my motives. It's disingenuous to say that I have no notion of vengence. But until Dr. Dawkins asked that question, and this issue started being debated, it never occured to me that speaking out is, at least in part, my way of finally defeating this demon I live with every day. <br /></p><p>If there is a way, and I shudder even thinking this out loud, to make this man pay for his cruelty, perhaps this journey will lead me to it. But ultimately there must be a strong will from within the state or federal government or my father and my family will run roughshod over them in the defense they mount for their prophet.<br /></p><span class="smallText"> </span>Nate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4024934453795908723.post-79571298978354597672009-04-20T15:25:00.000-06:002009-04-20T15:27:51.673-06:00A journey to Atlanta and beyond...April 15th, 2009<br />I was not prepared for the outpouring of support and emotion that occurred after I spoke at the American Atheist Convention last weekend (April 11th). There is just so much that happened, so much I need to say, and so many I want to thank. Richard & Angela Haynes...what can I say...a great couple with real heart. There was the young man and his mother who came from Overland Park, Kansas. He was so excited to get to talk with me because one of the local high schools where he lives had recently staged a very successful counter protest when my family visited a theater production they disapprove of. Then there was...well, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me start at the beginning: Back in late October, actually I think it was published on Halloween of 2008 (coincidentally the birthday of my sister Shirley - what are the odds of that?!?), a young college student published an article that he wrote after meeting me in my cab in Cranbrook, British Columbia. Following our meeting he spent several hours interviewing me by phone. From that came his article "Running From Hell" that was published on the University of British Columbia web site. Here's a link if you are interested in reading it: http://www.ubyssey.ca/?p=5624 David Silverman of American Atheists happened upon the article and contacted me with an invitation to speak at the convention. I spent the next 4 months in a constant state of agitation as I cobbled together my thoughts and experiences into a speech. At the same time, I was doing an independent study program to get my Provincial financial adviser license and working 50+ hours a week driving a cab. Another gentleman who read the "Hell" article and contacted me was John Lombard from Vancouver. He ended up being invited to speak at the convention as well. His expertise in public speaking as well as his editing assistance on the speech was also very helpful. So, on a sunny Tuesday afternoon (April 7th) my fiance Angela, John Lombard, and myself piled into our van and headed out of Cranbrook toward the stunningly beautiful city of Atlanta, Georgia. Oh, one other issue that was creating terrible stress in me was the very real question of whether the Canadian Border Patrol would let me back in. While I have "status" with my work permit, there was some suggestion that they may not consider that sufficient to allowing me back across as an American citizen. On top of that, the Canadian government had recently ordered the border patrol agency to not allow any of the Phelps clan into the country after they had threatened to protest at the funeral of a young man who had been murdered and beheaded on a Greyhound bus here in Canada. Putting my anxieties behind me, we turned south and across the border. We switched off driving and made the journey of over 2,400 miles in just over 41 hours. We arrived at the Emory on Thursday around noon. The next few days were a blur as I fine tuned my speech to get it down to the right time length and wandered around the convention, dazed and confused. We made a few forays out into the community and found a remarkable little restaurant called The Flying Biscuit. It will always be the symbol of our affection for Atlanta. Angela has pretty much convinced me to name our daughter (if we can manage to make one) Georgia because of our experience there. I did get the opportunity to sit at Dr. Dawkin's table at the Friday night dinner, but there was no chance to chat with him. I had the impression that he wanted to be left alone so I struck up conversations with several others at the table. On Saturday morning, I was up early obsessing over the speech. We headed for the convention hall in time to catch the end of Dr. Thompson's speech. Dr. Dawkin's speech was next and I was not disappointed. I have fed off of Dawkin's books and web site over the past few years and find his capacity to present lucid arguments both brilliant and sustaining. The crowd broke for lunch and the sweat broke out on my brow...my turn next *gulp*. All I can say at this point is Thank (God/Zeus/Thor/The Flying Spaghetti Monster) for Angela. She was my rock throughout it all. So much second guessing and anxiety and she just kept saying it would be okay...the story was compelling... ...David is up on the stage with me struggling with the speaker's mike. Now he's searching for his introduction which he can't find. I might just throw up. Snatching up a convention program from the podium, he turns to the page about me and reads the information there verbatim...he was great! As much as I didn’t want to come across as an amateur, oh well…at least I didn’t stutter too much. In truth, the only emotion stronger then the abject terror of standing in front of a room full of people was the very real concern that I would break down during certain parts of the speech. I deliberately avoided looking at Angela because she was so emotional throughout. Then something odd happened…the audience began clapping. I gotta say, I did not see that coming. Every time I focused on a face I just saw all this seriousness…then it happened again. Applause. Anxiety dropped a few levels as the audience interrupted my speech 4 times. At the end they all stood up and I almost broke down. Oh, no time for that as I notice Dr. Dawkins striding purposefully to the Q&A microphone. O!! M!! G!! The next 3 or 4 hours was a blur as I shook hands with dozens of people, hugged many who were in tears, then rushed off to do two taped interviews. I finally found Angela who recounted her own stories of being approached by many more people. She even had the opportunity of a lively discussion with Dr. Dawkins in the foyer. The rest of the afternoon and evening was a blur of introductions and invitations. I finally got back to the room with Angela where we tried to relax for a little bit before I went to a 3rd interview. Finally, we headed back down to the bar in the main lobby and I was at last able to sit down with Richard Haynes and his wife Angela. Richard had contacted me prior to the convention and we agreed to get together. It was some of the best time we had in Atlanta. We asked if they could take us somewhere that was uniquely Atlanta and ended up at the Varsity Jr. restaurant (I use the term restaurant very loosely here). The food was…erhm…deliciously dangerous. The conversation ranged from hilarious to poignant. Richard’s background as a reformed pastor of a fundamentalist mega-church provided him with many experiences similar to mine growing up with Fred. Our Angela’s got on famously (does it violate official atheist dogma to point out the fact that both of our ladies have “Angel” in their name?) We talked about some of the people who approached me after the speech in tears. It occurred to us that there are a lot of people out there who carry serious baggage from a background of religion based fear. I feel like I have a duty to do something positive with the unique circumstances I find myself in. Maybe we can work together to make a difference in peoples lives. We said goodbye in the early morning hours Sunday and headed back to the room for a few hours rest before we headed north at 6 am. We crossed back into Canada just before midnight on Monday, some 42 hours later. The agent at the border was funny and kind…and let me back in without hesitating. *whew* I got home and slept 2 hours before getting up to work another 10 hours…driving!! While I’m not clear on the exact direction we might take with this, Richard and I are serious about giving it a go. To that end, I want to post the entire content of my speech from the convention. This can be found on my personal website at www.natephelps.comNate Phelpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02142914568704191323noreply@blogger.com3