Christian Thoughtcrime

Photo by Toho Scope [CC BY-SA 2.0]

Among atheists, it is not a secret that most Christians do not seem to believe much of what they claim to believe. If they did, they would behave quite differently from how they behave. No, I'm not expecting Christians to be perfect. I'm not suggesting that they would never deviate from their stated beliefs. Like everyone else, they'd make mistakes. But it seems pretty clear that most aren't even trying to do many of the things they'd be trying to do if they believed what they often claim to believe.

Sabio Lantz (Triangulations) brings us one of many good passages from a book many Christians insist is "holy" to illustrate something relevant here: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." This bit of "wisdom" is from Matthew 5:28 [NIV], and it gives us a good opportunity to ask ourselves a question we should probably raise more often: How would a Christian who really believed this behave? How similar is this to how most Christians behave now?

Adultery, if I am not mistaken, is supposed to be "sinful." In the bible, it probably carries some fairly severe punishments, both in this life and the next. And yet, it is fairly normal for healthy young heterosexual men to notice and even desire women they regard as attractive. What we have here looks an awful lot like Christian thoughtcrime. Thinking impure thoughts is equated with behavior. And that could mean that having such thoughts is more than enough to justify punishment.

Continuing to Misunderstand Support for Trump

By Marc Nozell [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Henry Olsen opens his article, What liberals (still) get wrong about Trump's support, in The Guardian with the following:

Liberals and progressives are forever predicting Donald Trump’s political demise. After each purported outrage – Charlottesville, separating children from their immigrant parents, now Helsinki – they confidently contend that this latest event will finally force Trump’s supporters to abandon him. Yet not only does this not happen, Trump’s support has actually risen by 6% since late 2017. How do they keep getting it so wrong?

Good question. I'd say that it probably has something to do with the same sort of wishful thinking we see among religious believers. They really want support from Trump to decline, so they convince themselves that it will despite evidence to the contrary. Some prominent Republican politicians who have been willing to speak out against Trump; however, most Republicans continue to support him. There is little evidence that Trump's support among the Republican voters who elected him is eroding.

Breaking Up the Monotony of Atheist Blogging

When Conservative Skeptic recently asked whether atheist writing has "lost its luster," I could relate. I suspect most atheist bloggers could as well. The appeal of writing about atheism and closely-related topics waxes and wanes. Even if one were to use a broad enough view of atheism that it could include everything from criticizing religion to secular activism, there does seem to be a point at which it becomes repetitive. Even the extremely popular "look-at-what-crazy-thing-the-Christian-said" type of post gets old quickly.

I've tried to deal with this in a few different ways. First, I regularly address topics that are peripherally related to atheism and likely to be of interest to many atheists (e.g., freethought, humanism, skepticism, secular activism, reason). Second, I write a fair bit about politics and the nature of our political discourse on social media because I think we need far more reason, nuance, and civility. I worry that some aspects of our outrage culture are undermining our ability to work together to solve problems. Third, when I find myself feeling bored by or uninterested in these topics, I either take a break or give myself the freedom to write about something that has nothing to do with atheism.

An Open Letter to the Democratic Party

Dear Democratic Party:

Although I'm concerned that you seem to have made little progress since the 2016 presidential election, I recognize that you have probably been doing all kinds of things behind the scenes of which I am unaware. And let's be clear, the task you face is not an easy one. You have to find a way to assemble a large coalition of people who can't seem to agree on much of anything and then persuade them to show up to vote.

On one hand, you have the people who are often referred to as "establishment Democrats" or the "Clinton wing" of the party. They've long been the core Democratic base, and you cannot afford to write them off. What they may lack in youth, energy, or enthusiasm, they make up for in donations and voter turnout. On the other hand, you have the "progressive Democrats" or the "Sanders wing" of the party. They appear to be the future, and you cannot afford to write them off either. As much of a challenge as it may be to get them to the polls or mold some of their pie-in-the-sky desires into things that can be achieved, they bring the passion and energy you so desperately need. Your challenge is to find a message and eventually a presidential candidate around which both groups can unite.

It might seem like the message part should be easy, but I don't think that is the case. It should be clear from 2016 that an anti-Trump message may be necessary but is unlikely to be sufficient. Beyond opposing Trump, what does the party stand for? Many people on your progressive wing want the party to move away from corporate America entirely. Is that realistic, and can it be done without alienating your establishment wing? I'd guess not. And while your platform can include many issues, it is difficult to determine which ones should be emphasized over others. For example, is immigration really a better issue to try to unite voters around than health care? I'm skeptical. Crafting a coherent message will not be easy, but it does provide you with an opportunity to start bringing people together.

A Brief Review of mother! (2017)

Every so often, I come across a horror film that leaves me staring at the screen with my mouth hanging open and wondering what the hell I just watched...but in a good way. It doesn't happen often. Those that leave me wondering what the hell I just watched in a bad way seem to be far more common. I'd put Irreversible (2002) in this second group. It not only made me wonder what the hell I had just watched, but it left me asking why I would subject myself to something like it in the first place.

Until now, my go-to example of the first group of films would probably have been Antichrist (2009); however, it has never been a great example because I can't claim to have enjoyed it all that much. I appreciated its art, but it was a bit too strange for me to enjoy, more like a bad trip than a film. Now that I've seen Darren Aronofsky's mother! (2017), I believe it is a better example of the first group of films. It blew me away, was more than strange enough to make me feel like I was watching something different, and I can say I enjoyed it. So yes, it delivered the WTF reaction but in a good way.