Greta Christina's Blog

Atheists in the Pride Parade: Some Thoughts on Churlishness and Integrity

How can atheists be civil and friendly with religious believers -- particularly believers who are actively representing their beliefs -- while maintaining our integrity about our atheism?

Last Sunday, I marched with the atheist contingent in the San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade (hosted by San Francisco Atheists, East Bay Atheists, and Atheist Advocates of San Francisco). It was an awesomely fun day (even with the "hanging around for over three hours waiting our turn to get into the parade" part). We had a good 50 people in the contingent: it was a totally fun and marvelously motley crew, and hanging out and marching with them was a blast. And we got LOTS of love and support from the crowds watching the parade: from generic "Woo-hoo!"-ing to intense emotional outpourings. (We also got a certain amount of blank, deer- in- the- headlights stares, and the occasional bit of pushback -- but mostly, we got love and support.) It was very gratifying, and more fun than a barrel of narwhals. Causing a commotion, 'cause we are so awesome!

But because contingents in the Pride Parade are organized by theme, we wound up marching close behind the assorted gay religious groups: the Metropolitan Community Church, Dignity (the gay Catholic organization), the gay evangelical group whose name I don't remember, the ones who had the float with the giant rainbow cross on it. (I so wish I'd thought to get a photo.)

Which meant that the three-plus hours hanging around waiting our turn to get into the parade was spent in fairly close quarters with these religious groups.

Which posed an etiquette/ ethics conundrum: How can I be civil and friendly with religious believers -- particularly believers who are actively representing their beliefs -- while maintaining my integrity about my atheism? The basic principle -- respecting people and treating them with courtesy and dignity, while retaining the right to criticize and even disrespect ideas -- is a straightforward one in theory... but how does it play out in practice?

I'm going to be very clear right now: I'm speaking here only for myself. I am not speaking for any of the organizations hosting the atheist contingent in the Pride parade, or for any of the other participants in it. The thought processes and decisions I'm describing here are entirely my own.

So here was the situation. Many of the people in the religious contingents wanted to be friendly and make nice with the atheists. Many folks smiled and gave us the thumbs-up; when their contingents were moving past us on their way to filing into the parade, many of them cheered and applauded us. Some even made more overt gestures: one woman from the gay evangelical group came over to talk with us about David Byers' "Leviticus Says... Crazy Shit," sign, and how much she agreed with it, and how those bad homophobic right-wing evangelicals were getting God's true message totally bolloxed up, and how in the end it was really all about love.

Nice, right?

Yeah. See, here's the problem.

In the last several years, I've gotten into many, many conversations with progressive, tolerant, ecumenical religious believers about atheism. And in my experience, their tolerance for atheists dries up fast when we actually start discussing atheism. Once they find out that atheists don't agree with any religion -- even theirs? Once they find out that we are, in fact, familiar with the progressive and accepting versions of religion, that it really isn't new to us... and that we still don't believe? Once they find out that the reason we're atheists isn't because we think religion is hostile and ugly, but because we think it isn't, you know, true? Once they find out that most atheists' attitude towards progressive ecumenical religion is, "Yeah, it's less bad than the hateful, bigoted right-wing bullshit, but it still lends credibility to the idea that it's okay to believe whatever you feel like without any good evidence to support it -- and most importantly, it's still just flat-out wrong"?

Once they find that out -- the pro-atheist Kumbaya hand-holding dries up in a hurry.

It's not a facade or a fake, exactly. I think the believers are sincere about it. It's just not very closely examined. In many cases, they've never really talked with atheists about our atheism. So they make assumptions about what we think of them... assumptions that are generally not true. They assume that we're as uncritically accepting of progressive ecumenical religions as progressive ecumenical religions are of each other. They assume that our opposition to religion is simply opposition to the bigotry and hatred of the more conservative versions of it... and not opposition to the whole idea of belief in invisible supernatural entities. They assume that their particular beliefs get the Atheist Seal of Approval. And when they find out that they're wrong... then the "Thumbs-Up For Atheism" attitude tends to disappear into the mist.

And it was very hard to see the smiles and the applauding and the thumbs-ups at the Pride Parade, and not remember all those conversations. It was very hard to see the smiles and the applauding and the thumbs-ups, and not think, "I know how this conversation ends up." It was very hard to see the smiles and the applauding and the thumbs-ups, and not think that ultimately, it was bullshit.

I didn't want to get into an argument. Or rather... I did want to get into an argument. Very much so. When the woman who was trying to make nice with us said that the homophobic religious right had gotten God's message all wrong, I absolutely wanted to ask her, "Okay, so you think the homophobic religious right is getting Christ's message wrong. How do you know that you're getting it right? What reason do you have to think that you, personally, know what Jesus really meant, and that all these other jackasses are getting it wrong? They cherry-pick scripture to support their position; you cherry-pick scripture to support yours -- how do you know that your cherries are the ones Jesus would approve of? Oh, and while we're on the subject: What evidence do you have to believe that Jesus is the divine son of God in the first place? Are you aware of how laughably unreliable the New Testament is as a historical document? Are you familiar with the arguments that the historical Jesus probably didn't even exist, and that the case for him being the divine son of God is a total joke?" I was kind of dying to get into it, if you want to know the truth. I was chomping at the bit.

But I also felt like it would be inappropriate. This wasn't the time or the place. This wasn't a debate, or an editorial, or an atheist blog comment thread. This was the Pride Parade. A time for celebration -- not a time for divisiveness. And besides, the reason I was there to put forth a positive representation of happy, joyful, queer-positive atheism into the LGBT community... not to get into a pissing match. So I smiled weakly, and mouthed non-committal vaguenesses, and escaped from the conversation as gracefully as I could.

Which still made me feel churlish. When people are extending a "We're all brothers and sisters" hand, it feels churlish to shrug and reply, "Yeah, not so much."

The same thing happened when the religious contingents and floats went by us and applauded. I felt like they were saying to us, "Sure, we believe in God -- but we're not like those other bad religions! We think atheists are great! Don't you think we're great, too?" I felt like they were asking us for the Atheist Seal of Approval. I felt like they were expecting us to applaud them back. And I felt churlish for not doing so.

But you know what? I can't applaud religion. I just can't. I think religion is a flatly mistaken idea about the world. I think it's an idea that, on the whole, does significantly more harm than good. I'm devoting my writing career to persuading people out of it. I can be friendly and respectful with the believers... but I'm not going to express my approval for the beliefs.

And in a culture -- like progressive LGBT culture -- where uncritical acceptance of different religious beliefs is part of the standard etiquette, I don't know how to maintain that integrity without coming across as pissy, intolerant, and churlish.

Atheists talk a lot about the parallels between the LGBT movement and the atheist movement. I talk a lot about it myself. But I think we need to remember that, for all the parallels between the two movements, there are some important differences. And one of the biggest differences is this:

There is nothing about saying, "I am queer," that implies, "You are mistaken to be straight." But there is something about saying, "I am an atheist," that implies, "You are mistaken to believe in God." Coming out as queer is a subjective statement about what is true for you personally. Coming out as atheist is an assertion about what you think is objectively true about the external world. When we come out as atheists, we're not just saying what's true for us. We're saying what we think is true in the world. And by implication, we're saying that people who disagree with us are wrong. Even if we're not actively trying to persuade people out of religion -- heck, even if we don't care whether people believe in religion -- we're still saying that we think religion is wrong.

We need to cop to that.

We need to acknowledge that, for atheists, coming out is different than it is for queers. We need to acknowledge that, for atheists, even the gentlest, least- confrontational, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone" forms of coming out are, in fact, still confrontational. Not just because people don't want to hear it; not just because the conventional etiquette demands that we not say it. Because it is. Because we're telling people that they're wrong.

I think we need to accept that. And I think we need to take responsibility for it.

There are a lot of different ways for us to say it. We can say it in gentle, diplomatic, "You can be good without God" ways. We can say it in snarky, in-your-face, "You know it's a myth" ways. We can say it in bald, statement-of-fact, "There's probably no God" ways. There is room for both confrontationalism and diplomacy in this movement, and in fact the movement is stronger with both methods than it would be with just one or the other.

But I think we need to accept that this is always going to be a difficult topic. I think we need to accept that being honest about who we are and what we think is always going to ruffle some feathers. I think we need to accept that ruffling feathers is not the worst thing human beings can do to one another. It's not even in the Top Ten. And I think we need to accept that being out as atheists, and maintaining our integrity as out atheists, may always be seen -- and feel -- a little bit churlish.

Because it is.

That's just going to have to be okay with us.

Save the Students!

"For just a dollar a day, you can help guarantee these students' spiritual emptiness for years to come."

Hi-larious -- excuse me, heartbreaking, poignant, deeply touching -- video from the Secular Student Alliance, riffing off the "You can save little Sheila, or you can turn the page" motif. Hear all about the desperately needy secular students, "many of them in reason- deprived areas of the world, like the United States." Watch them try to keep straight faces. And see me and PZ Myers jump joyfully in the air!

Video below the jump, since putting it above the jump mucks up my archives.

Wealthy, Handsome, Strong, and with Endless Hard-Ons: Is Masculinity Impossible?

This piece was originally published on AlterNet.

The cultural ideal of masculinity isn't just narrow and rigid -- it's literally unattainable. What can men do about it?

If you're familiar with feminism -- whether you're for it or against it -- you've almost certainly heard feminist rants about cultural ideals of femininity. You've heard how standards of femininity are so narrow and rigid that they're literally unattainable. You've heard how, to avoid being seen as unfeminine, women are expected to navigate an increasingly narrow window between slut and prude, between capable and docile, between moral enforcer and empathetic helpmeet. You've heard how female fashion models have been getting increasingly thin over the years, to the point where disordered eating is becoming an industry norm... and how even the minuscule percentage of women who can become fashion models, with or without eating disorders, routinely get their pictures Photoshopped to make them fit the beauty myth. You may have even ranted some of those rants yourself.

Here's what you may not know: It works that way for men as well.

I've been thinking more and more these days about how rigid and narrow the gender expectations are for men. I've even written about it before, in this very space. But a recent article about male fitness models has made me vividly conscious of how the expectations of masculinity aren't just rigid or narrow. They are impossible. They are, quite literally, unattainable.

And while this unattainability can tie men into knots, I think that -- in a weird paradox -- it can also offer a glimmer of hope.

The article in question is about the hellish, dangerous, illness-inducing routines that male fitness models regularly go through to forge their bodies into an attractive photograph of the masculine ideal. According to journalist Peta Bee in the Express UK (the article was originally published in the Sunday Times [London], but they put it behind a paywall), in order to make their bodies more photogenic and more in keeping with the masculine "fitness" ideal, top male fitness models routinely put themselves through an extreme regimen in the days and weeks before a photo shoot. Not a regimen of intense exercise and rigorously healthy diet, mind you... but a regimen that involves starvation, dehydration, excessive consumption of alcohol and sugar right before a shoot, and more. This routine is entirely unrelated to any concept of "fitness." In fact, it leaves the models in a state of serious hypoglycemia: dizzy, exhausted, disoriented, and (ironically) unable to exercise, and indeed barely able to walk. But the routine makes their muscles look big, and tightens their skin to make their muscles "pop" on camera. And even then, the magazines use lighting tricks, posture tricks, flat-out deceptions, even Photoshop, to exaggerate this illusion of masculinity even further.

On any sort of realistic irony meter, the concept of starved, dehydrated, dazed, weakened men being offered as models of fitness completely buries the needle. But this isn't about reality. The image being sold is clearly not one of "fitness" -- i.e. athletic ability and physical health. The image being sold is an exaggerated, idealized, impossible extreme of hyper- masculinity.

And the illusion being sold by the fitness magazines is that this hyper-masculinity is attainable. If you just work out longer and harder; if you're just more careful about your diet; if you just take the right supplements and drink the right sports beverage... then you, too, can have a body like a fitness model. A cartoon image of fitness is being sold to men as if it were actual fitness. And men are being taught that there's something wrong with them if they can't get there.

But this ideal of masculinity isn't just difficult to achieve. It isn't just narrow; it isn't just rigid; it isn't just out of reach for some or even most men. It is, quite literally, unattainable. Even the fitness models themselves can't attain it: not without nightmarish physical ordeals, camera tricks, and Photoshop. It is a carrot being dangled in front of a donkey -- which the donkey will never, ever get to eat.

We're not just talking about the world of fitness modeling, either. From weight loss products to underwear ads to cosmetic surgery to supposedly helpful books of advice on how to make yourself tolerably appealing to the opposite sex, men are being increasingly bombarded with messages about what Real Men are supposed to look like. It's not surprising that, among men, reported rates of anorexia nervosa, anorexia athletica, and other forms of disordered eating and body dysmorphia are on the rise.

And we're not just talking about physical ideals of masculinity. We're talking about cultural ideals. Sexual ideals. Economic ideals. Emotional ideals.

Sexuality educator Dr. Charlie Glickman has written a great deal (and teaches workshops) about male gender expectations, and what he calls "the performance of masculinity." And a two-part series he recently wrote crystallized this idea for me. He was talking about the "box" of masculinity --- the ideas we have in American culture about what a "real man" is and does. You know: strong, competitive, dominant, wealthy, good at fixing machinery, lots of sexual partners, enjoys sports, big dick that gets hard on demand. You know the drill.

And he pointed out that many of these ideas aren't just rigid or limiting. They actually conflict with each other. As Glickman put it, "Some of the items in the box are contradictory. You can't be a mechanic and a CEO. I've talked with men who are convinced they're not Real Men because they aren't rich and I've talked with men who are convinced they aren't Real Men because they don’t work with their hands."

In other words: The Act Like a Man Box isn't just a painful, difficult, miserably limiting place to live. It is, quite literally, an impossible place to live. It doesn't exist. It isn't like having your goal be to live in a big mansion in Beverly Hills with dozens of supermodels hanging around the pool. It's like having your goal be to live on the surface of the sun. It literally can't be done.

But here's the good news.

"Impossible" is, in many ways, a better cultural ideal to have than "really, really difficult."

Because it's a whole lot easier to ignore.

Now here is where, I freely admit, I am stepping away from more solid facts, and into the realm of harebrained speculation based on my own personal experience. That being said, I still think I'm onto something.

The day I realized that the cultural ideal of femininity was, quite literally, unattainable? The day I realized that women are supposed to be sexy and chaste, undemanding and seeking commitment, meek delicate flowers and strong backbones of the family? The day I realized that if you're tall you're supposed to look shorter, and if you're short you're supposed to look taller, and if you're fat you're supposed to look thinner, and if you're thin you're supposed to look more voluptuous, and that whatever body type you had you were supposed to make it look different? The day I realized that every woman is insecure about her looks... including the ones we're supposed to idolize? The day I realized that, no matter what I did, no matter how hard I worked, I would always, always, always be a failure as a woman?

That was the day I quit worrying about it.

If the world is telling you that if you work just a little bit harder, you can be strong enough, pretty enough, rich enough, whatever enough... you'll be a lot more tempted to keep running that treadmill, keep chasing the carrot that's dangling in front of you. But if the world is telling you that if you work just a little bit harder, you can turn yourself into a unicorn and start shitting diamonds? The whole thing just becomes laughable. And it becomes a whole lot easier to step off the treadmill. Obviously the cultural expectations still affect you -- I'm not claiming to be free of them, I don't think anyone is -- but it's a lot easier to see them for what they are, and shrug them off, and get on with your life.

So guys? Listen up.

The world is telling you to turn yourself into a unicorn and start shitting diamonds.

The world is giving you an impossible task. It's not just a stupid task; it's not just a pointless task; it's not just a needlessly confining task; it's not just a task that will make you miserable. It is, quite literally, unattainable. You will never, ever be man enough.

So stop giving a damn. And be whoever you are.

Be a whisky-drinking electronic music nerd who mixes a perfect Manhattan. Be a dialog editor who bakes banana bread and does stand-up comedy. Be a tattooed poet and kettlebell competitor. Be a retired soldier who does English folk dancing. Be a software engineer with waist-length hair and a thing for Michelin-star restaurants. Be a French-speaking rare book collector who calls into sports radio talk shows. Be a porn writer and atheist activist with eighteen cats. Be a muscle-bound gym rat who sings opera and cries in public.

Be who you are. That's actually an attainable goal. And it's a hell of a lot more fun.

Sex, Love, Revenge ... and Atheism? Finally, a Big New Film That Shows Non-Belief in a Positive Light

"The Ledge" is smart, riveting, complex, emotionally engaging, visually gorgeous... and best of all, almost entirely unpredictable.

A young man walks toward the ledge of a tall building. He is clearly filled with trepidation and even terror; at the same time, he has an equally clear air of purpose and resolve. That resolve: To jump.

It soon comes out that the man is an atheist. And the audience's first thought might be, "Oh, right. Atheism -- depressing, joyless, no sense of meaning or life's value. Why wouldn't he just kill himself?" But the story unfolds in places that are miles away from any such predictable path. Far from being depressed or joyless, the potential jumper, Gavin (Charlie Hunnam), has a singular joie de vivre. Far from having no meaning, his life is filled with compassion and intense moments of connection, both large and small. And his suicide attempt is not, as it turns out, a result of his seeing life as valueless and meaningless. It is, instead, an expression of his deep sense of how precious life is.

For reasons I can't tell you without giving away the ending.

Let's get this out of the way right at the start: I enjoyed the heck out of "The Ledge," and am recommending it heartily to pretty much everyone. Atheists, believers who are curious about atheists, people who just like good movies -- I recommend "The Ledge" to all of you. Written and directed by Matthew Chapman (author of Trials of the Monkey: An Accidental Memoir and 40 Days and 40 Nights: Darwin, Intelligent Design, God, Oxycontin, and Other Oddities on Trial in Pennsylvania, as well as Charles Darwin's great-grandson), "The Ledge" is smart, riveting, complex, emotionally engaging, visually gorgeous... and best of all, almost entirely unpredictable. Its characters are, well, human -- likable, aggravating, tough, loving, damaged -- and the story is unpredictable in exactly the ways that human beings are unpredictable. It's not a perfect film -- I'll get to that in a tic -- but its imperfections are ten times more compelling than most of the boilerplate crap regularly churned out by the Hollywood machinery.

*

Thus begins my review for AlterNet of the new atheist feature film, "The Ledge": Sex, Love, Revenge ... and Atheism? Finally, a Big New Film That Shows Non-Belief in a Positive Light. To find out more about what made this movie so compelling, what made it flawed, and whether I think it really is atheism's "Brokeback Mountain" (as its producers have been pitching it), read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

Upcomng Events: Atheists at SF Pride Parade, and Greta speaking at TAM and SSA Conference

Hi, all! I'm going to be at some upcoming events that I thought you might want to know about.

I'm marching with the atheist contingent in this Sunday's LGBT Pride Parade in San Francisco.

I'm going to be speaking at The Amazing Meeting -- along with Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, Carol Tavris, Adam Savage, Eugenie Scott, Bill Nye, PZ Myers, Michael Shermer, Jennifer McCreight, Debbie Goddard, Jamila Bey, Hemant Mehta, James Randi (of course), and a bunch of other skeptical all-stars.

And I'm going to be speaking at the Secular Student Alliance annual conference -- along with PZ Myers, Dan Barker, Jessica Ahlquist, Jennifer McCreight, David Silverman, Jamila Bey, Hemant Mehta, Amanda Knief, Debbie Goddard, and more totally awesome atheist speakers. Plus there'll be a game room all day Friday... and this conference is where I will be popping my karaoke cherry, as promised when Team Awesome beat PZ Myers in the Camp Quest fundraising challenge.

Here are the details for all three events. Hope to see some of you there!

EVENT: Atheist Contingent at the San Francisco LGBT Pride Parade
DATE: Sunday, Jun 26, 2011
TIME: Meeting at 10:30 am
LOCATION: We're gathering at Assembly Area K on Beale between Mission & Howard in San Francisco. Look for the banners: Atheist Advocates of SF, SF Atheists and East Bay Atheists. Please allow time to deal with walking from the BART Embarcadero Station, etc. There will be no nearby parking.
NOTE: If you're planning to go, it'd be good if you could RSVP through the Meetup event, so the organizers have an idea of how many marchers to expect. It's not absolutely necessary, though -- you can just show up!
ANOTHER NOTE: Be sure to bring water and sunscreen. We'll be outside in the sun for a long time.
STILL ANOTHER NOTE: You don't have to be LGBT to be part of this contingent! Straight allies are welcomed and indeed encouraged. I, for one, would love for the queer community to see a bunch of atheists with signs saying things like, "Straight Atheists Support Gay Rights."
ONE MORE NOTE: If you're not in the Bay Area, there might be an atheist contingent in your local Pride Parade! Check with your local atheist group or Pride Parade organizers.

EVENT: The Amazing Meeting
DATES: July 14-17, 2011
DATE AND TIME OF MY PRESENTATION: Sunday, July 17, 2011, 2:15 – 3:15 pm
LOCATION: Southpoint Hotel and Casino, Las Vegas, NV
TOPIC: Diversity in Skepticism -- panel discussion with Greta Christina , D. J. Grothe, Debbie Goddard, Jamila Bey and Hemant Mehta; moderated by Desiree Schell
COST: See convention website for details

EVENT: Secular Student Alliance annual conference
DATES: July 29-31, 2011
DATE AND TIME OF MY PRESENTATION: Saturday, July 30, 8:30 pm - 9:00 pm
LOCATION: Hitchcock Hall, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
TOPIC: Resistance Is Not Futile: Why Arguing About Religion Is Not A Waste of Time
SUMMARY: Many atheists think that trying to persuade people out of religion never works, and simply alienates people. But debating believers about their beliefs can be effective -- in changing people's minds about religion, as well as in achieving other goals of the atheist community. When does it makes sense to debate about religion? How should we go about it? And what should our expectations be for what these debates can accomplish?
COST: See convention website for details. But a lot cheaper than you'd think -- and they have travel grants available, group rates for groups of students coming from the same school, and cheap dorm housing. They really want students to come, and want to make it as east as possible. So come!

Wealthy, Handsome, Strong, and with Endless Hard-Ons: The Impossible Ideals Men Are Expected to Meet

American ideas about "real men" are contradictory and impossible to live up to. So stop trying!

You've almost certainly heard feminist rants about impossible cultural ideals of femininity: how standards of femininity are so narrow and rigid they're literally unattainable; how, to avoid being seen as unfeminine, women are expected to navigate an increasingly narrow window between slut and prude, between capable and docile, between moral enforcer and empathetic helpmeet.

Here's what you may not know: It works that way for men as well.

A recent article about male fitness models has made me vividly conscious of how the expectations of masculinity aren't just rigid or narrow. They are impossible. They are, quite literally, unattainable.

And while this unattainability can tie men into knots, I think that -- in a weird paradox -- it can also offer a glimmer of hope.

*

Thus begins my latest piece for AlterNet, Wealthy, Handsome, Strong, and with Endless Hard-Ons: The Impossible Ideals Men Are Expected to Meet. To find out more about how male fitness models endure dangerous, illness-inducing routines to make their bodies look that way on camera; how the ideal of masculinity -- not just the physical ideal, but the emotional and cultural and sexual ideal -- has become not only narrow and rigid but literally unattainable; and how, paradoxically, the unattainability of this ideal can be actually liberating... read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

Grief Beyond Belief: A Faith-Free Support Network Launches on Facebook

How can atheists and other non-believers deal with the reality of grief in our lives?

And how can we help one another deal with that reality?

We talk a lot in the atheist movement about making atheism a safe place to land for people who are leaving religion. We talk a lot about how religion is, for many people, the only game in town when it comes to community and support in a time of loss and grief -- and how, if we're going to make atheism a viable alternative to religion, we need to build community and support networks to replace it. We talk a lot about the commonly-held belief that religion is necessary to give comfort and solace in the face of death and grief -- and how the atheist community needs to not only make godless philosophies of death more widely known and understood, but provide one another with practical, on-the-ground support in the face of death's reality.

Some of us are even doing something about it.

My friend Rebecca Hensler is one of them. She has just started Grief Beyond Belief, a faith-free online support network for non-religious people grieving the death of a loved one.

Her announcement about the network is below. She explains it better than I can, so I'm just going to let her have the floor. Please spread the word about it. This is something many people in the atheist/ agnostic/ humanist/ skeptic/ freethinker/ non-religious world are very much in need of -- or will be in need of at some point in our lives -- and we should let people know that it's available.

*

In response to the clear need for grief support among non-religious people, Grief Beyond Belief launches today on Facebook. The Grief Beyond Belief page offers an online support network for people grieving the death of a child, parent, partner, or other loved one -- without belief in a higher power or an afterlife. Atheists, agnostics, humanists and anyone else living without religious beliefs are invited to join and participate on the page. Bereaved people in the process of questioning or letting go of previously held religious beliefs are also welcome to be part of the community and seek support.

In many ways, Grief Beyond Belief resembles other online grief support networks and forums. However, religious grief support -- including prayer, faith in god, and belief in an afterlife -- is not welcome in posts or comments. In this way Grief Beyond Belief offers a safe space for atheists and other non-religious people to share and process the death of a loved one. Recognizing that the death of a loved one sometimes leads to reevaluation of religious beliefs, every effort will be made to make the page accessible to people who are still struggling with these issues. However, the page is not intended as a venue for debate, but as a space for shared compassion and support. While religious believers may participate on the page, they are required to follow these guidelines.

Once a participant has "liked" Grief Beyond Belief, she or he will periodically receive a thought, question, quote or link in her or his News Feed addressing various aspects of grief, often focusing on grieving a death without faith. Participants are also invited to post memories, photos, thoughts, feelings or questions they would like to share, on which other members can comment. In addition, the page serves as a central location on the web where members can link to writing about grief and loss that is coming from an non-religious perspective. Bloggers are strongly encouraged to post links to blog entries on this topic on the Grief Beyond Belief wall.

Grief Beyond Belief’s founder, Rebecca Hensler, discovered the need for such a group when seeking support for her own grief after the death of her three-month-old son. “I quickly found a network of parents who were also grieving the deaths of their children at The Compassionate Friends (a 42-year-old parental grief support group). But I often felt alienated by assurances from other members that my son was in heaven or by offers to pray for me, comforts that were kindly meant but that I do not believe and cannot accept. It wasn’t until an atheist member reached out to me in friendship that I understood what I had been missing.” Hensler soon discovered that she was not the only non-believer who felt a need for safe space to grieve without faith or belief in an afterlife. “I have been particularly moved by the experiences of non-believers who are attempting to heal from loss while surrounded by religious people pressuring them to join or rejoin their religions; at its worst that kind of so-called ‘help’ can verge on abuse.”

The need for faith-free space to share grief and healing has been addressed frequently on atheist blogs, such as Friendly Atheist. (Hemant Mehta. “Are There Resources for Atheist Widows?”, Friendly Atheist, June 2, 2011.) While a Facebook page may only meet a small portion of that need, Grief Beyond Belief serves to open the door to grieving non-believers seeking community and compassion.

Contact: Rebecca Hensler, [email protected]

Join Grief Beyond Belief by going to the Facebook page and clicking the "like" button.

10 Scariest States to Be an Atheist

This piece was originally published on AlterNet.

Let's be clear. It's not like it's easy to be an atheist anywhere in the U.S. Atheists are the most distrusted and disliked of all minority groups -- more than Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, and gays and lesbians -- and polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist than they are for a person in any other minority or marginalized category. And this hostility can have serious consequences, in the form of harassment, bullying, ostracism, vandalism, alienation from family, loss of jobs, and more.

But to be honest, there are parts of the country where being an atheist really isn't all that awful. Heck, I live in one of them. There's some bigotry, some discrimination, a fair amount of misunderstanding and even hostility... but all things considered, it's pretty okay. And then, there are some parts of the country where being an atheist sucks giant donkey dicks.

Let's talk about a few of those, shall we?

Now, to a great extent, how badly it sucks to be an atheist may not depend on the state you live in. It's sort of like the red-state/ blue state myth: cultural differences in the United States break down more along urban/ rural lines than they do along state lines. Is it easier to be an atheist in New York than in Texas? Maybe... but it may also be easier if you're in Austin, Texas than if you're in rural upstate New York.

Many atheist and secularist leaders I spoke to stressed this point. According to Fred Edwords, National Director of the United Coalition of Reason (the organization responsible for many of the atheist billboard campaigns), "As for the worst states to be an atheist, it doesn't generally work that way. It depends on what part of a state you are in." In fact, he's not even sure that this difference always breaks down along urban/ rural lines. "Is the key idea that the more rural areas give us the most trouble?" he asked. "Maybe. But we had bus ads vandalized in Detroit, too." And he added that in Kentucky, "we had no problem in Louisville, but I still can't get a billboard company to run our ads in supposedly more liberal Lexington." And according to the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State "No state is really safe for non-believers. You find creationist ideas in schools from Louisiana to New Jersey. You find efforts to send secular tax dollars to religious schools in Indiana and Florida. And, finally, you find polls done of all Americans demonstrating that plenty of families don't want their sons or daughters marrying atheists. There are many sad states of affairs."

So the point here isn't to show that some states suck for atheists worse than others. The point is to show that anti-atheist bigotry is real. The point is to show that it has real-world consequences. And the point is to let you know what some of those consequences are.

So with all that being said -- let's get on with the list! If you're finishing your degree in secular studies and are trying to decide where in the country you want to plant your godless stakes... here are some places you might want to avoid.

#10: Pennsylvania. Yes, I know. Everyone's expecting this list to be overloaded with the deep South. And yes, I'll be getting there soon enough. But religious privilege and anti-atheist hostility don't stay below the Mason-Dixon line. Anti-atheist bigotry can, and does, happen anywhere.

And Pennsylvania is Exhibit A. Specifically, Annville, Pennsylvania. Where atheist veterans marching in the Memorial Day parade were jeered, booed, insulted, cursed at, yelled at to leave, and told they were going to burn in hell. Not once or twice by a couple of fanatics... but repeatedly, throughout the course of the parade.

Let me spell that one out again. In small town America, veterans -- veterans, on Memorial Day, marching in a Memorial Day parade -- were jeered, booed, insulted, cursed at, yelled at to leave, and told they were going to burn in hell.

Because they were atheists.

'Nuff said.

#9: Idaho. Where atheist billboards -- not in-your-face controversial ones, but almost aggressively mild ones, simply announcing that atheists exist and are good people -- are vandalized on a regular basis. According to Maggie Ardiente, Director of Development and Communications of the American Humanist Association, "Thanks to a member of ours who lives in Moscow, Idaho, the AHA has been putting up billboards over the past two years to promote humanism and atheism. When we put up a factual, non-controversial billboard that said, 'Millions are Good Without God,' it was vandalized twice! We continue to put billboards in the area, but there is often additional security provided when we put up a new one." Just like it says in the Bible: "And whatever place will not take you in and will not give ear to you, when you go away, put off the dust from your feet... and then deface their billboards like a douchebag."

#8: Arkansas. (I told you I'd get to the deep South!) Hey, at least in Idaho, atheists can put up their dang billboards. In Arkansas, the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) has flatly rejected an atheist ad that the Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason wanted to put up on 18 buses... solely and entirely because the content of the ads -- "Are you good without God? Millions are" -- is atheist.

I am not kidding. Even the public excuses being given for rejecting the ads -- possible vandalism and even "terrorism" due to the "controversial" nature of the ad -- are based on the fact that these ads have atheist content, expressing the "controversial" view that atheists, you know, exist, and are good people. And as the behind-the-scenes scrambling reveals, they are blatantly doing this based on religious hostility to atheism. Check this out:

In response to an e-mail message dated February 28, 2011, from Plaintiff’s media broker to the Advertising Agent conveying the content of the Proposed Advertisement, the Advertising Agent forwarded the message to Betty Wineland, the Executive Director of the Authority, stating in her accompanying message (in its entirety): "Dear God……HELP!" Ms. Wineland replied: "I need Him now more than ever. Good grief. I think we need to throw religion into the advertising policy – as a negative. Stall while CATA reviews."

Let me spell this one out very plainly: A government-run public transit authority is rejecting religious-themed advertising -- solely because the religious view being advertised is the view that religion is mistaken. And no, they haven't changed their policy to reject all religious-themed ads. They still take religious-themed ads. Just not ones from atheists.

Oh, and in case you were wondering: Yes. They're being sued.

#7: Alabama. The state where the actual governor, Robert Bentley, said in actual words, "Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister." The state where it took an interfaith delegation, led by the Anti-Defamation league, to inform him that there are non-Christians in Alabama. Non-Christians who -- I hope I don't have to remind you -- are fully fledged legal residents of the state. Non-Christians whom Bentley also serves as governor... every bit as much as he serves the Christians. As American Atheists president David Silverman says, "Top of my list is Alabama, home of Roy Moore and 'You are not my brother' Governor Bentley. It appears that to hold office in Alabama, you have to be completely ignorant of American Law and despise the Separation of Church and State."

Oh, and in case that's not enough: Let's talk about some places where it sucks to be an atheist in high school. Let's talk about the Secular Student Alliance, and their new program specifically devoted to supporting high school atheist groups. Let's talk about the resistance that atheist students routinely get from public high school administrators who want to block students from forming secular groups. And let's talk a little more about Alabama. The only state where the SSA has had to initiate a lawsuit about it.

Duncan Henderson wanted to form a secular club at his public school -- which he has the full legal right to do. But his school principal denied his request. According to JT Eberhard, campus organizer and high school specialist at the Secular Student Alliance, "When Duncan's father scheduled a meeting to discuss the matter, the principal showed up to the meeting with a lawyer, who more or less repeated, 'We're going to follow the law' in response to every question. But the school has not followed through on that promise to follow the law. The school has stonewalled, and attempts by the SSA to discuss the matter were met with an email from the school's attorney saying they're not going to speak to anybody."

Hence -- lawsuit. Which, as of this writing, is happening solely and entirely in the state of Alabama. As Eberhard added, "While it's not the first state in which we have seen pushback from adults in a position of authority over students to the idea of atheists forming clubs in the same way religious students form clubs, it is the first state in which we've had to bring in lawyers to fight for equality denied."

#6: North Carolina. Where in December of 2009, Cecil Bothwell couldn't even get elected to the Asheville city council, without people trying to invoke laws -- antiquated laws overruled by the Supreme Court, but laws nonetheless -- banning him from taking office because he's an atheist.

Okay. Let's be fair. This isn't exactly an isolated case. Lauren Becker, Vice President and Director of Outreach of the Center for Inquiry, points out that several states have antiquated laws on the books banning atheists from holding office. "The Supreme Court has said that federal law prohibits states from requiring a religious test to serve office," she says, but "there are still some states that have such laws, whether they enforce them or not."

North Carolina, however, has the distinction of actually trying to enforce one of these laws. Less than a year and a half ago.

#5. Florida. On the other hand, in Florida, you might get kicked out of a city council meeting simply for wearing an atheist T-shirt. And if you protest against prayers at city council meetings, you might actually get arrested.

So that's gotta suck.

#4: Rhode Island Did you hear the one about the public high school with the prayer banner in the school gym -- a prayer banner specifically addressed to "Our Heavenly Father"? The public high school that got asked to take the banner down by fifteen-year-old atheist high school student Jessica Ahlquist, since it's an unconstitutional promotion of religion by government? The public high school that's digging in its heels and hanging on to the banner, despite decades of unambiguous legal precedent making it clear that they're in the wrong? The public high school that's getting sued by said atheist high school student and the ACLU... and is still digging in its heels, devoting extensive time and resources to defending their promotion of religion?

That's Rhode Island, folks. And this story isn't just about a school administration insisting on its right to unconstitutionally establish religion. It's about a community's ostracization of an atheist teenager -- in some cases to the point of threats of violence. Ahlquist has been shunned, insulted, vilified, and even threatened with violence. Students in an English class in her school said -- during class -- that she should be "smacked around and beat up" for fighting the prayer banner. Comments in the Providence Journal article on the story were ugly, personal, even threatening -- to a great extent about the ACLU, but largely about Ahlquist herself. ("I think you need to talk to a doctor and get help... you are sick in the head." "Looks like we have a moon bat in the making." "Make no mistake, Jessica and the Bolshevik thugs representing her are driven by anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance and censorship... Curse them to hell.") In fact, according to the Providence Journal, Ahlquist and another student were removed from their regular classroom schedule last month -- after some students said they intended to harm her. To quote JT Eberhard, high school specialist at the Secular Student Alliance, "In the city of Cranston, an entire community, perhaps an entire state of adults, is engaging in a smear campaign against a single high school student. Her crime? Believing her school violates the first amendment by hanging a prayer banner in the gym invoking the phrases 'Our heavenly father' and 'Amen'."

And this is in New England. This is Rhode Island. The first of the 13 original colonies to declare independence from British rule. The state specifically founded as a place of religious freedom, as a response to religious persecution. A slat in the cradle of liberty. And they are vilifying and threatening a fifteen- year- old girl for being an atheist, and for insisting that her public school follow the Constitution and not shove religion down her throat. Anti-atheist bigotry is everywhere. It's not just in Alabama or Mississippi. Or even Texas.

#3: Texas. Wow. Where do you start with Texas? The public high school graduation ceremony that was like a revival meeting? The transit company that changed their policies and stopped accepting any bus ads for any religious organizations... just so they wouldn't have to take ads from atheists? The governor who responded to economic troubles, natural disasters, and terrorism by initiating a state day of prayer, and exhorted Texans to "call on Jesus"? The governor, again, who decreed three official state Days of Prayer for Rain? The public school where they distribute Bibles? The high school textbooks which teach that the Bible was a "foundational text" in the framing of the U.S., that the King James Bible "remains one of the... most-loved books in the history of the world," and that "the sun went black" when Jesus was crucified? The state Constitution that says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being"? The teachers that get fired, not for being atheists, but for being suspected of being atheists? The town where they get seriously hysterical about atheists playing "Jingle Bells" in a Christmas parade?

Come on. Did you really expect Texas not to be on this list?

#2: Mississippi. I could say a lot about Mississippi. For instance, I could talk about how, when the Second Chance Prom was being organized for lesbian student Constance McMillan, the state chapter of the freaking ACLU refused to take money from the American Humanist Association and the Stiefel Freethought Foundation... because it was atheist money. I shit you not. In an e-mail message to AHA, Jennifer Carr, the fund-raiser for the ACLU of Mississippi, said, "Although we support and understand organizations like yours, the majority of Mississippians tremble in terror at the word 'atheist.'" The ACLU would later apologize and accept the money; but, as Maggie Ardiente, Director of Development and Communications of the AHA, puts it, "We were very disappointed to see an organization that's famously known for standing up for everyone's rights -- including the right to be an atheist or humanist -- initially discriminate against us."

That's reasonably messed-up. But I want to focus instead on a much more practical, nuts-and-bolts, life-screwing-up form of anti-atheist bigotry -- child custody.

It is depressingly common for atheists to have child custody limited, or even denied, explicitly on the basis of their atheism. Cases have been documented again and again and again, in states including Michigan, Minnesota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. But according to Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy, "Mississippi is the most serious offender." Volokh goes on to say, "In 2001, for instance, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order giving a mother custody partly because she took the child to church more often than the father did, thus providing a better 'future religious example.' In 2000, it ordered a father to take the child to church each week, as a [lower] Mississippi court ordered... reasoning that 'it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training.'"

Try to imagine a judge in this country denying or limiting custody to a parent, explicitly and specifically, because they were Jewish. Because they were Mormon. Because they were Baptist. And now, try to imagine a judge in this country denying or limiting custody to a parent, explicitly and specifically because they're an atheist. You don't have to imagine it. This is real. This happens. And it happens in Mississippi more than anywhere else in the country.

And finally, we come to my Number One Worst State to Be an Atheist:

#1: Louisiana.

I freely admit that this list, and the order I'm presenting it, is subjective. It's not based on a careful statistical analysis of rigorously gathered data based on journalistically objective criteria about anti-atheist bigotry. It's based on stories that happened to get my atheist dander up. It's based on stories that made me sad -- and enraged.

And the story that happened in Louisiana made me sad, and enraged, more than almost any other.

I'm talking about Damon Fowler.

I'm talking about the atheist high school student who opposed his public school having a school-sponsored prayer at his graduation. Whose name was leaked. And who, as a result, was hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community; publicly demeaned by one of his teachers; physically threatened; and thrown out by his parents, who cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and threw his belongings onto the front porch. Whose public school went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway. Who has had to leave his home and move in with his sister near Dallas, Texas.

You know things are bad when your atheist safe haven from extremist religious persecution is in Texas.

That's Louisiana.

Worst. State. Ever.

*

And you wanna know the really sad thing? This piece could have been a lot longer. This could easily have been the 20 Worst States to Be an Atheist. The 30 Worst. Heck... the 50 Worst.

You've got Maryland. Where yet another atheist high school student started a group, whose posters were torn down by other students -- and where actual parents of those students wrote letters to the editor supporting the vandalism, and calling the atheist posters "an atrocity." You've got Georgia. Where students taking their AP tests at a church were proselytized to by church members. You've got Utah. Where, says American Atheists president David Silverman, "the State Attorney General is trying to have the Roman Cross pronounced secular so it can be placed on public buildings and schools without regard to equal access." You've got Oklahoma. Where still another public high school student tried to start an atheist group, and was accused by his principle of trying to start a "hate group"... and where the faculty advisor for the group suddenly withdrew, saying she had been told sponsoring the group would be "a bad career move." You've got... oh, you get the idea.

Is anti-atheist bigotry as bad as homophobia or racism, misogyny or transphobia? No, probably not. Not for the most part. I don't like comparing oppressions: it's divisive and pointless, and I don't think anything is gained by playing "more oppressed than thou." There are a few ways that anti-atheist bigotry is worse than others -- the roadblocks being tossed up against high school students leap to mind, as does the whole "least trusted/ least likely to be voted for" thing. But atheists don't seem to be subject to the same level of physical violence as gay or trans people -- or the same level of economic oppression as women or people of color. And I'm not saying that they are.

My point is not that anti-atheist bigotry is as bad as other forms of bigotry. My point is simply that it exists. It is real. It happens all over the country. And it has real-world consequences.

So if you're ever tempted to ask why atheists are so angry, or why they have to kick up such a fuss all the time, or why they want to organize and form groups based on what they don't believe in... remember that.

"I was kind of an aimless teenager": Greta's Interview with Teen Skepchick

There's a cool interview with me on Teen Skepchick! We talk about boys, clothes, makeup, Justin Bieber... no, no, no. Totally kidding. I've just always wanted to be interviewed by Teen Something magazine, and I'm letting my imagination run away with me. We talk about shifting identities, connections between skepticism and sexuality, career paths or the lack thereof, making atheism a safer place for teens to come out into, and more. Here's an excerpt:

When you were a teen, where did you see yourself going in your adult life? Are you the person you thought you would be?

Honestly? I was kind of an aimless teenager. My goal as a teenager was to get into a good college where I knew I’d be happy -- and I was very focused on that goal. I actually graduated high school in three years (which took a lot of work) so I could get the hell out of there and get on with my life. But beyond college, my future was kind of a blur. And it was still very much a blur once I left college. I took a long, long time to figure out what I wanted to do with my life, and while I’ve been writing professionally off and on since my late twenties, I didn’t get serious about it until I turned 40. For many years, I drifted from job to job, mostly based on what was catching my interest at the time. (And on what jobs were available at times when I needed to find new work!)

Which actually worked out really well for me. I know adults aren’t supposed to say that to teenagers -- but it’s true. I do wish I’d gotten more serious about the writing earlier -- I missed a lot of opportunities that I still regret. But drifting from job to job got me into some very interesting jobs. I’ve worked at an abortion clinic, a public library, a lesbian sex magazine, a gay newspaper, a sex toy company, a small press book publisher and distributor. Even my boring job at the ticket company exposed me to music and theater and dance and other culture that I never would have explored on my own.

And a lot of those “drifting” jobs opened professional doors. The job at the lesbian sex magazine was just a clerical job, but they were the first place to publish my writing. Ditto the gay newspaper -- it was initially just a clerical job, but they eventually hired me to write as well. And most of my jobs exposed me to new political and cultural ideas, about feminism and sexuality and LGBT rights and censorship and so on -- ideas I’m still exploring in my writing. I would much rather have a boring job at an interesting place than an interesting job at a boring place. I don’t know if I’d give that as general career advice... but it’s certainly been true for me.

To read more, read the rest of the interview. And if you feel inspired to comment here, please consider cross-posting your comments to the Teen Skepchick site -- they like comments there, too. Enjoy!

The People I've Slept With

This piece was originally published on CarnalNation. The movie is now available on DVD.

A young woman is talking to her newborn baby.

"I love sex," she says. "And some people thought it was a bad thing. But I've learned that a slut is just a woman with the morals of a man."

Sudden, screeching rewind back in time, slightly less than nine months. The free-spirited adventurer in question, Angela (Karin Anna Cheung), has just learned that one of her adventures has resulted in an embryo. She considers getting an abortion -- her gay best friend, Gabriel (Wilson Cruz) practically demands it -- but her conservative sister Juliet (Lynn Chen) pressures/ fearmongers/ persuades her that her life would be better if she settled down to a normal, stable family life. "Settle down," she exhorts. "Grow up, and be happy for once." Somehow neglecting to notice that Angela is already pretty darned happy. And definitely neglecting to notice that Angela is making her own conscious decisions about her own life... pretty much the textbook definition of being grown up.

So Angela decides to keep the baby... and embarks on a comical search to figure out which of her many adventuring partners is the father. It's a challenge: Angela's partners are sufficient enough in number that she keeps track of them through what she calls "baseball cards," Polaroids with personal stats scrawled on the back. But she narrows the possibilities down to the five men she didn't use birth control with -- and goes through an assortment of wacky hijinks to collect their DNA for paternity tests. Her heart is pulling her in one direction -- toward Jefferson (Archie Kao), the sweetheart labeled on her baseball card as "Mystery Man" -- but she's bound and determined that she's going to have a normal married life, which means the man she marries should bloody well be the man she happened to conceive with. Regardless of whether she actually, you know, likes him, and wants to spend the rest of her life with him.

Yes, I know. It's another "shmashortion" movie, in which a woman who under any other circumstances would be off to Planned Parenthood in a nanosecond for an abortion mysteriously decides to keep the baby... because if she didn't, it'd be a fifteen minute movie. It's an annoying pattern. Noted. Annoyed. Let's move on.

Because "The People I've Slept With" is, in fact, a movie worth moving on to. It's an odd duck: a mutant offspring of a smart, quirky, genuinely funny character study/ comedy of errors, and a sloppy, under-written jumble of cliches and careless implausibility. But the good stuff is sufficiently good -- and sufficiently uncommon -- to make it well worth a look.

Especially for anyone interested in movie depictions of unconventional sex.

For starters, it's delightful to see a woman in a movie have casual sex, with a wide assortment of partners of both genders, in a wide assortment of styles and variations... and be pretty much fine with it. And it's a striking reminder of how rare this is. (Samantha in the increasingly revolting "Sex and the City" franchise is pretty much all we've got. Loki help us all.)

It's true that much of the movie involves Angela's freakout about her free-form life, and her cockamamie, half-assed pursuit of the American Dream, Heteronormative Style. But throughout the course of her cockamamie freakout, it's made eminently clear that... well, that it's a cockamamie freakout. The source of the humor isn't that she's struggling to find her way to the Right and True Path while being comically sidetracked into her old habits. The source of the humor is that she's struggling to find her way to a path that's laughably wrong for her. And in the end -- and no, it's not a spoiler, they give it away in the first five minutes -- her salvation comes, not by accepting conventionality, but by embracing unconventionality. Especially in how she arranges her new family.

And there are oodles of lovely, funny, wonderfully refreshing sexual touches generously sprinkled throughout the movie. I love that the slutty, quirky, free-spirited Angela is her father's favorite, and her normal, buttoned-down sister Juliet is the one he worries about and feels alienated from. It shatters so many stereotypes: about Asian families in particular, and about all families in general. I love how casually multicultural the movie is, and how sex not only with lots of different partners but with partners of lots of different races is treated as No Big Deal. I love how casually Angela's bisexuality is revealed: her female partners are introduced in the litany of baseball cards right alongside the male ones, and while they're less frequent than the guys, they're shuffled into the pack as equals, and treated with the same cheerful, breezy affection.

And I love, love, love that Gabriel, Angela's Gay Best Friend, has not just a life of his own, but a sex life of his own. The Gay Best Friend is quickly becoming one of the most annoying movie tropes in town: yes, yes, positive gay visibility in media, it's all very nice indeed, but when gay people are constantly relegated to the sidelines of the real story, there solely to provide support and wisdom and a shoulder to cry on for the people who really count, and kept carefully neutered to keep them likeable and safe, it starts to wear a bit thin. But not here. In "The People I've Slept With," the Gay Best Friend gets to have a storyline of his own. And he gets to have sex. And love. And romantic complications. He's not the main character -- this is Angela's story, not Gabriel's -- but he clearly has a rich, complicated, fully sexual life of his own. A life that folds into Angela's as an equal, instead of being subsumed by it as a sidekick.

All of which made me desperately wish this were a better movie. It comes so close. So many of the characters are rich and unpredictable and human... and yet so many others are one-note caricatures. So much of the emotion is nuanced and authentic... and yet so much of it is mawkish and hackneyed. So much of the story is natural and believable... and yet so very, very much of it is labored and fake, with plot twists that strain credibility, taking place not because that's what the characters would do, not because any living human being would ever do anything remotely like that, but because the story has to move on to the next bit. I hate how Nice-But-Boring-Guy turns into a hysterical stalker overnight when he thinks he's going to be a father... and I truly hate how his stalking is played for laughs. I hate how a major breakup near the end (I won't tell you whose) is impossibly utopian, perfectly happy for all concerned, with no emotional complications or consequences, breezily dismissed so the train can keep pressing along to Happy Ending Land without further delay. I hate the sister who doesn't care that her brother's dead. And I hate, hate, hate that the entire plot hinges on Angela's half-assed use of birth control. I know, I know -- it's like the "shmashortion" thing, there wouldn't be a movie without the dumb plot device -- but given how happy and self-aware she is in general about her sluthood, it just rings false.

And the whole movie is like that. The false notes are woven into the true ones, bouncing back and forth between thoughtfully funny character exploration and dumb screwball hijinks, so fast it makes your neck hurt trying to keep track. And it's so unnecessary. The good movie is truly good -- smart and quirky, inventive and funny, with a fresh approach to sexuality and a casually gutsy willingness to question tons of assumptions about it. It's actually way more entertaining than the dumb, fake hijinks. I wish the filmmakers had either done another rewrite to work the dumb bits out of there... or trusted that the good movie didn't need them.

The People I've Slept With. Starring Karin Anna Cheung, Wilson Cruz, Archie Kao, James Shigeta, Lynn Chen, Rane Jameson, Tim Chiou, and Stacie Rippy. Written by Koji Steven Sakai. Directed by Quentin Lee. Produced by Steven Sakai, Stanley Yung, and Quentin Lee. People Pictures/ 408 Films Production. Unrated.

10 Scariest States to Be an Atheist

Let's be clear. It's not like it's easy to be an atheist anywhere in the U.S. Atheists are the most distrusted and disliked of all minority groups -- more than Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, immigrants, and gays and lesbians -- and polls show that Americans are less likely to vote for an atheist than they are for a person in any other minority or marginalized category. And this hostility can have serious consequences, in the form of harassment, bullying, ostracism, vandalism, alienation from family, loss of jobs, and more.

But to be honest, there are parts of the country where being an atheist really isn't all that awful. Heck, I live in one of them. There's some bigotry, some discrimination, a fair amount of misunderstanding and even hostility... but all things considered, it's pretty okay. And then, there are some parts of the country where being an atheist sucks.

Let's talk about a few of those, shall we?

Now, to a great extent, how badly it sucks to be an atheist may not depend on the state you live in. It's sort of like the red-state/ blue state myth: cultural differences in the United States break down more along urban/ rural lines than they do along state lines. Is it easier to be an atheist in New York than in Texas? Maybe... but it may also be easier if you're in Austin, Texas than if you're in rural upstate New York.

Many atheist and secularist leaders I spoke to stressed this point. According to Fred Edwords, National Director of the United Coalition of Reason (the organization responsible for many of the atheist billboard campaigns), "As for the worst states to be an atheist, it doesn't generally work that way. It depends on what part of a state you are in." In fact, he's not even sure that this difference always breaks down along urban/ rural lines. "Is the key idea that the more rural areas give us the most trouble?" he asked. "Maybe. But we had bus ads vandalized in Detroit, too." And he added that in Kentucky, "we had no problem in Louisville, but I still can't get a billboard company to run our ads in supposedly more liberal Lexington." And according to the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State "No state is really safe for non-believers. You find creationist ideas in schools from Louisiana to New Jersey. You find efforts to send secular tax dollars to religious schools in Indiana and Florida. And, finally, you find polls done of all Americans demonstrating that plenty of families don't want their sons or daughters marrying atheists. There are many sad states of affairs."

So the point here isn't to show that some states suck for atheists worse than others. The point is to show that anti-atheist bigotry is real. The point is to show that it has real-world consequences. And the point is to let you know what some of those consequences are.

So with all that being said -- let's get on with the list! If you're finishing your degree in secular studies and are trying to decide where in the country you want to plant your godless stakes... here are some places you might want to avoid.

*

Thus begins my latest piece for AlterNet, 10 Scariest States to Be an Atheist. To find out... well, which are the ten scariest states to be an atheist -- and no, they're not all in the deep South -- read the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

High School Atheist Ostracized by Town -- Atheist Community Steps Up

This piece was originally published on AlterNet.

When a high school atheist tried to stop prayer at his graduation, he was ostracized, threatened, and kicked out of his house. But the atheist community stepped in.

Whatever you think about atheists -- good, bad, mixed, indifferent -- this story should seriously trouble you.

Damon Fowler, an atheist student at Bastrop High School in Louisiana, was about to graduate. His public school was planning to have a prayer as part of the graduation ceremony: as they traditionally did, as so many public schools around the country do every year. But Fowler -- knowing that government- sponsored prayer in the public schools are unconstitutional and legally forbidden -- contacted the school superintendent to let him know that he opposed the prayer, and would be contacting the ACLU if it happened. The school -- at first, anyway -- agreed, and cancelled the prayer.

Then Fowler's name, and his role in this incident, was leaked. And, as a direct result:

1) Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.

2) One of Fowler's teachers has publicly demeaned him.

3) Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to "jump him" at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.

4) Fowler's parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the front porch.

Oh, and by the way? They went ahead and had the graduation prayer anyway.


Before we get into the details of all this, let's be very, very clear about the facts and the law here: Nobody -- not Fowler, not the ACLU, nobody -- is telling anybody at Bastrop High School that they can't pray. People can pray at graduations and other school events all they want. The sole issue here is whether a public school can have a prayer at a graduation or other school event as an official, school- sponsored part of the program. Individual prayer? Hunky dory. Off-campus prayers at churches or private events? Knock yourself out. Government promotion of a religious agenda? Not so much. What with the First Amendment and the "establishment of religion" bit and all. And it's a law and a Constitution that protects everybody -- not just atheists. If you wouldn't want to be subjected to a government- sponsored Buddhist prayer, you ought not to be subjecting others to a government- sponsored Christian prayer.

Okay. I hope that's clear.

So here's a little more detail about what exactly happened with Damon Fowler.

1) Fowler has been hounded, pilloried, and ostracized by his community.. He's become the center of what he terms a "shitstorm": he has been harassed, vilified, targeted with insults and name-calling and hateful remarks. He's been told that he's the Devil. He's been told, "Go cry to your mommy... oh, wait. You can't." (A reference to him being disowned by his parents.) He's been told that he's only doing this to get attention. A student's public prayer at a pre-graduation "Class Night" event was turned into an opportunity for the school and community to gang up on Fowler and publicly close ranks against him -- teachers as well as students. (Here's video). And people seen defending him have been targeted as well.

As just a taste, here are a few comments on the Bastrop Enterprise news story about the controversy: "I personally see him as a coward." "I hope they [Christians] put enough pressure on this kid to convert him and save his soul from the fire of hell." "The kid was likely a recluse and apathetic about most everything until now." "If he don't want prayer at graduation he can stay at home and not come to graduation." "Afterall, that's what she or he wants isn't it to be singled out! This just makes me ill." "I hope that the little athiest is offended." "What he is really doing is trying to shove his views down people's throats." "Why does this student only now decide to get engaged in what is happening at the school? Is it nothing more than our own self-destructive human nature to break down anything of which we may not approve?" "That student should just have to have his/her one man graduation ceremony all alone." "Satan continues to prowl and is deceiving many in this world."

2) One of Fowler's teachers has publicly demeaned him. From the story in the Bastrop Enterprise:

Mitzi Quinn has been on the staff at BHS for almost 25 years, much of that time as a senior advisor. In the past, Quinn said there have been students who were atheist, agnostic and other non-Christian religions who "had no problems" with the prayer.

"They respected the majority of their classmates and didn't say anything," Quinn said. "We've never had this come up before. Never."

Throughout her time working with the student, Quinn said they never expressed their personal beliefs or that they had any problems with other students' Christian faiths.

"And what's even more sad is this is a student who really hasn't contributed anything to graduation or to their classmates," Quinn said. (emphasis mine)

In other words: Because the majority of students want an unconstitutional prayer at their graduation, therefore they're in the right. Because nobody's ever had the courage to speak up about this before, therefore the law was not being broken, and everything was okay. (After all, it's not like anything bad happened when Fowler spoke up... right?) And because Fowler hasn't "contributed anything" -- other than, you know, a model of risking safety and security to stand up for a principle he believed in -- therefore his basic legal right to not be targeted with religious proselytization by his public school is irrelevant... and he deserves to be publicly derided by one of his teachers.

3) Fowler has been physically threatened. Students have threatened to "jump him" at graduation practice, and he has received multiple threats of bodily harm, and even death threats.

Enough said.

4) Fowler's parents have cut off his financial support, kicked him out of the house, and thrown his belongings onto the porch.

Let's be very, very clear about this one. At a time when their son was being bullied, threatened, publicly pilloried, and ostracized from his school and his community, his parents joined the party. Their initial response was to hold him in their house against his will, take his cel phone and cut off his contact with the outside world, and even cut him off from contact with his older brother, Jerrett. Their more recent response has been to cut off financial support, kick him out of the house, and throw his belongings onto the porch.

Fortunately, Damon isn't entirely alone. His brother Jerrett is assisting Damon, and will help put him through college; and as of the last report I've seen, Damon is currently living with his sister, also in Texas. And Damon is fortunate enough to have the backing of the atheist community, who are providing encouragement, emotional support, practical assistance, and even a scholarship fund. (UPDATE: The scholarship fund is now closed. Info on where you can make donations is at the end of this piece.)

More on that in a moment.

Since that's a lot of what this story is really about.

There are a lot of hot-button issues in Damon Fowler's story. There's the depressing fact of how common this kind of story is: the fact that, despite the law being unambiguous on the subject, public schools around the country are continuing to sponsor prayers and otherwise promote theocracy, in flagrant violation of the law... apparently in the hopes that nobody will want to make waves and speak out against it. There's the lack of understanding in the United States about fundamental civics: the all-too-common belief that "majority rules" in every situation, and the all-too-common failure to comprehend the principle that the minority has basic civil rights. There's the ugly reality of anti-atheist bigotry and discrimination across the country -- especially in high schools. According to JT Eberhard, high school specialist for the Secular Student Alliance, "In Alabama, Auburn High School is refusing to allow an SSA affiliate. In Cranston, Rhode Island, a public school is facing an ACLU suit for refusing to take down a sectarian prayer [a banner posted in the school gym]. In Texas we had a student who was told he could have a secular club if he called it a philosophy club and didn't affiliate with the SSA. The list of similar situations is a mile long and these are only the ones I've become aware of in my first four and a half months on the job. The Fowler incident is much closer to being the norm than the exception."

There are rants about religion to be had here as well. There's the level of not only hostility, but panicked hostility, when entrenched religion gets its privileged status threatened. There's the way that religion relies on social consensus to perpetuate itself -- and how, when that consensus is threatened, it commonly reacts by smacking down dissent and expelling dissenters. There's the idea that the unverifiability of religion -- the beliefs in invisible, inaudible, intangible gods promising an afterlife nobody can know anything about -- means that the harm done in its name has the unique capacity to spin off into the stratosphere... since there's no reality check. There's the image of religion as a colossal fortress protecting a house of cards: powerful, massive structures and institutions staunchly buttressed and hotly defended to ensure that nobody ever examines the ideas inside and sees how flimsy they are.

And of course -- duh -- there's separation of church and state. There's the principle that a public school should not be sponsoring prayers at graduations. What with that being a government establishment of religion and all, and thus being -- oh, what's that word? -- unconstitutional.

All of that is important.

But there's something else important going on here.

And that's the way the atheist community has stepped up to the plate.

Damon Fowler was ostracized by his school, his town, even his parents. But he has been embraced and welcomed by the atheist community. Atheist writers have been all over this story from the moment it broke: it's been covered on Friendly Atheist, Pharyngula, BlagHag, the Richard Dawkins Foundation, Atheist Revolution, The Thinking Atheist, Atheist Underworld, WWJTD, Rock Beyond Belief... the list goes on. Several atheist organizations are applauding Fowler for his courage. American Atheists said of Fowler, "This kid deserves mad props for letting his principal know on no uncertain terms that ACLU would be contacted if the prayer wasn't cancelled. Good job, Damon, you speak for the freedoms of people who are trapped in the bible-belt!" JT Eberhard, high school specialist for the Secular Student Alliance, said, "Despite the vile threats, bullying, and hatred his community has given him, we recognize Damon for what he is: a brave student speaking up for religious liberty and inclusion." Freedom From Religion Foundation spoke about "his courage in speaking out for his and other students' rights."

And it's not just the atheist thought leaders. It's the on-the-ground community. Fowler has received an outpouring of support from atheists around the country and around the world. The "Support Damon" group on Facebook has over 10,000 members as of this writing. The Reddit post from Damon and his brother Jerrett discussing these events has been loaded with expressions of empathy and outrage. Atheist forums and blog comment threads about Fowler all over the Internet have been extensive and passionate. And many atheists have written letters to the Bastrop High School administration expressing their support for Fowler's position and their opposition to the prayer.

This support isn't only emotional, either. Emotional support is not trivial, of course: it's hugely important, especially when you're being ostracized, targeted with a hateful smear campaign, and driven from your home. But a tremendous amount of practical and financial support is coming from the atheist community as well. Many atheists have offered Fowler transportation, legal advice, meetup groups, places to stay, physical protection, connections with others who could provide additional practical help, and more. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has given Fowler a $1,000 college scholarship. And perhaps most dramatically, Friendly Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta has established a scholarship fund for Fowler, so he can attend college despite being cut off financially by his parents -- and the response has been overwhelming. At the closing of the scholarship fund, the atheist community had donated over $31,000. Essentially filling the role that his parents have abandoned.

Why am I bringing this up?

One of the chunks of mud that's most commonly slung at atheists is that we're selfish. Amoral. That without a belief in God and the afterlife, people would have no moral compass, and would just act to please themselves, without any consideration for others. That without a belief in eternal punishment in the afterlife for bad behavior, eternal reward in the afterlife for good behavior, and a supernatural authority figure refereeing it all, people would have no reason to be good people, and no reason to avoid doing terrible things. That without religion, people would have no compassion, no sense of justice, no empathy, no desire to see society running smoothly... and would just do whatever we wanted to do.

But when Damon Fowler was suffering and in need, the atheist community stepped up. It provided compassion. It demanded justice. It offered emotional support. It offered practical support. It opened its wallets. It made it unassailably clear to Damon Fowler that he was not alone: that although his school, his community, even his parents, had all turned their backs on him, atheists would take care of him, as best they could, until he could take care of himself. It made it clear that, even though he no longer had a home in Bastrop, he had a home in this movement. When Damon Fowler was suffering and in need, the atheist community proved itself to be a real community.

If atheism means we just do whatever we want to do... then apparently, what we want to do is take care of each other. Apparently, what we want to do is help people who have been injured. Apparently, what we want to do is speak out against wrongdoing. Apparently, what we want to do is put a stop to injustice. Apparently, what we want to do is make sacrifices for people in need.

A whole lot more than the Christians in Bastrop, Louisiana.

I'm not saying that atheists are morally superior to religious believers. I don't think that, and I'm not saying it. I'm aware that many religious believers are good, compassionate people with a strong sense of justice. I'm even aware that many religious believers, indeed many Christians, are appalled by what's happening to Damon Fowler, and oppose it with every breath in their bodies. And I'm aware that many atheists are hostile, self-involved schmucks. (Believe me... I'm aware of that.) That's not my point.

My point is this: Human beings don't need God to be good. Human ethics seem to be wired into our brains, through millions of years of evolution as a social species, and every human being who isn't a sociopath has them. Some of us act on them better than others... but we all have them. Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Rastafarian, Wiccan -- and atheist.

And my point is this: The next time someone tells you that atheists are selfish and amoral? Remember Damon Fowler. Remember the religious community that bullied him, harassed him, ostracized him, and drove him out.

And remember the atheist community that took him in.

Damon Fowler's scholarship fund is now closed. If you're inspired by this story to make a donation, Damon has asked donations to go to the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the ACLU, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, the Secular Student Alliance... "any will do. As long as it's going toward students, secularization, or teaching critical thinking over superstition."

Do Atheists Have Better Sex?

This piece was originally published on AlterNet.

Leaving religion doesn't change people's sexual behavior very much -- but it vastly improves how they feel about it.

Do atheists have better sex?

Yes.

According to science, that is -- and more specifically, according to the recently released "Sex and Secularism" study.

In January 2011, organizational psychologist Darrel Ray, Ed.D. (psychologist for 30 years and author of The God Virus as well as two books on psychology) and Amanda Brown (undergraduate at Kansas University, focused on sexuality and sex therapy) conducted a sex survey of over 14,500 people -- atheists, agnostics, and other people in the secular community. The survey was looking at religion, atheism, and sex: how religion affects sex, how leaving religion affects sex, whether lifelong atheists feel differently about sex than people who have recently deconverted, and so on. The report -- "Sex and Secularism: What Happens When You Leave Religion?" -- is on the Internet, and if you want all 46 pages of the naughty details, including the charts and graphs and personal stories, you can download it free (you just need to register on the site).

But if you just want to know the gist?

Leaving religion improves people's sex lives.

A lot.

Atheists and other non-believers, as a whole, experience a lot more satisfaction in their sex lives than they did when they were believers. They feel much less guilt about their sex lives and their sexuality. The sexual guilt instilled by so many religions tends to fade, and indeed disappear, when people leave religion -- much more thoroughly than you might expect. And according to the respondents of this study, non-believers give significantly better sex education to their kids than believers do.

Now, when it comes to people's actual sexual behavior, religion doesn't have nearly as much impact as you might think. Religious and non-religious people have pretty much the same kinds of sex, at pretty much the same age of onset, and at pretty much the same rate. Believers are just as likely to masturbate, watch porn, have oral sex, have sex outside marriage, and so on, as non-believers are, and they start at about the same ages. So it's not like religious sexual guilt is actually making people abstain from forbidden sexual activity. All it's doing is making people feel crummy about it. And when people leave religion, this crumminess decreases -- at a dramatic rate. Believers and atheists are having pretty much the same kinds of sex... but when it comes to the pleasure and satisfaction experienced during this sex, it's like night and day.

Okay. Before anyone squawks, I'll start the squawking myself: There are some demographic problems with this study, and it shouldn't be relied on as the absolute final word on this topic. In particular, the participants in the study aren't statistically representative of the population: they're statistically representative of whoever heard about it on the Internet, and they're disproportionately represented by readers of the hugely popular atheist blog, Pharyngula. (In fact, in several places throughout the report, the researchers themselves freely acknowledge the limitations of their research.)

But that being said: The results of this report that aren't new? They're entirely consistent with the results of other research. Lots of other research, both on human sexuality and on religion/ atheism. And that makes those results a whole lot more plausible. As researcher Darrel Ray told me, "Our data is virtually identical to other national surveys on the basics of when and how people start sexual behavior." (Citations of those studies are in the report.) Yes, it's virtually impossible to get completely accurate, statistically representative information about human sexuality under any circumstances: there's not really any ethical way to get information about sex other than relying on people's self-reporting, and it's a topic that people tend to, you know, lie about. But on the reliability scale of human sex research, this report seems to rank on the higher end.

You might also argue -- as I myself did when I first saw this research -- that atheists are often pretty hostile to religion, and aren't going to give a fair assessment of their sex lives when they were religious. I think this is a valid question, and one that's worth investigating: in fact, I sincerely hope this report is the beginning of research into this topic instead of the end of it, and I'd be very interested to see studies of people who are currently religious and how they see their sex lives. (I'd be especially interested to compare the "Sex and Secularism" results to people who have converted from one religion to another, and whether they view their sex lives differently with the new religion.) But I'd also point out that the atheists who responded to this survey didn't give homogenous answers. Not by a long shot. Their responses varied a fair amount, depending on which religion they used to belong to, and how intensely religious their upbringing was. Their responses ranged from "ZOMG, my sex life totally sucked and now it's beyond awesome, I was blind but now I see"... to, "Meh, it's a little better, but it's really not all that different." So the idea that this report simply reflects a knee-jerk atheist hostility to religion... it's worth considering, but it's probably not what's going on here.

So what is going on here?

What, specifically, does this report say?

And what is its take-home message -- both for believers and atheists?

Atheism Is for Lovers

If there's one take-home message from the "Sex and Secularism" report, it's this: Atheists fuck better. Or rather: Atheists have a better time fucking. They feel less guilt about it; they experience more satisfaction with it; and the effect on their sex lives of leaving religion is almost universally positive. Believers of almost every stripe -- Mormon to Islam, Mennonite to Methodist, Catholic to New Age -- reported a significant improvement in their sex lives after becoming non-believers.

These differences do vary based on the religion. According to the "Sex and Secularism" report, some religions have a harsher impact on people's sex lives than others. People raised as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, for instance, ranked much higher on the sexual guilt scale than people raised as, say, Buddhists and Episcopalians. (And no, we shouldn't just assume that Catholicism is the guiltiest party. In fact, when it comes to which religions make its practitioners feel guiltiest about sex, Catholicism lands pretty much smack in the middle. The top of the list is Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, and Baptist. One of many results from this report that run counter to conventional wisdom.) And a similar pattern shows up again and again throughout the report. Conservative religions have a much more harmful effect on people's sex lives than more moderate or progressive ones -- in terms of guilt, sexual education and information, the ability to experience pleasure, the ability to accept one's sexual identity, and more.

But with only two exceptions -- Unitarianism and Judaism -- atheists experience less sexual guilt than religious believers of any denomination. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being no sexual guilt and 10 being extreme sexual guilt, atheists and agnostics ranked at 4.71 and 4.81 respectively... and except for Unitarianism and Judaism (which ranked slightly lower, 4.14 and 4.48 respectively), all other religions ranked higher in sexual guilt: from 5.88 for Lutherans, to 6.25 for Hindus, to 6.34 for Catholics, all the way up to a whopping 8.19 for Mormons.

And sexual guilt doesn't just go up with more conservative religions. It goes up with more religiosity, period. The more religious your upbringing is, the worse your sexual guilt is likely to be. Of people raised in very religious homes, 22.5% said they were shamed or ridiculed for masturbating (to give just one example)... compared to only 5.5% of people brought up in the least religious homes. And of people raised in very religious homes, 79.9% felt guilty about a specific sexual activity or desire... while among people raised in the least religious and most secular homes, that number drops to 26.3%. That's a huge, huge difference.

But one of the most surprising conclusions of this research? Sexual guilt from religion doesn't wreck people's sex lives forever.

According to conventional wisdom -- and I will freely admit that I held this conventional wisdom myself -- religious guilt about sex continues to torment people long after the religion itself has lost its hold. But according to the "Sex and Secularism" report, that's rarely the case. Once people let go of religion, people's positive experiences of sex, and their relative lack of guilt, happen at about the same rate as people who were never religious in the first place.

Ray was surprised by this result as well. (Surprising results -- a sign of good science!) "We did think that religion would have residual effects in people after they left," he told me, "but our data did not show this. That was a very pleasant surprise. That is not to say that some people don't continue to experience problems, but the vast majority seem to shake it off and get on with their sexual lives pretty well." So letting go of religion means a rebound to a sex life that's as satisfying, and as guilt-free, as a sex life that was never touched by religion in the first place.

Now, some hard-core religious believers might argue that this isn't a good thing. "People SHOULD feel sexual guilt!", they'd argue. "These kinds of sex are bad, mmmkay? God doesn't like them. People should feel guilty about them."

But it's worth pointing out two things. First of all, the activities being studied in this research are, from any rational perspective, morally neutral. This report isn't looking at rape, or non-consensual voyeurism, or groping people on the subway. It's looking at masturbation, oral sex, non-marital sex, homosexuality, etc.: sex acts and sexualities that are consensual, egalitarian, reasonably safe, and harmless to society. The taboos against them are just that: taboos. If there were ever any solid practical or moral reasons behind them, they're buried in the mists of history. And different religions have entirely different sets of these sexual taboos: some religions denounce some sex acts and accept others, while other religions accept Column A and denounce Column B. Without any apparent rhyme or reason. If God has a message for us about who and how he wants us to boff, he's not being very clear about it.

And maybe more to the point: According to the "Sex and Secularism" report, religion has essentially no effect on people's actual sexual behavior. Atheists and believers engage in the same practices, at basically the same rate, starting at essentially the same age. We're all doing pretty much the same stuff. Believers just feel worse about it. As Ray told me, "Our data shows that people feel very guilty about their sexual behavior when they are religious, but that does not stop them: it just makes them feel bad. Of course, they have to return to their religion to get forgiveness. It's like the church gives you the disease, then offers you a fake cure." So the argument that religious sexual guilt is good because it polices immoral sexual behavior falls down on two fronts. The sexual behavior it's policing isn't actually immoral... and the policing is almost entirely ineffective.

Oh, by the way? This improvement in people's sex lives when they leave religion? It isn't just about sexual guilt. It shows up in many aspects of people's sex lives, such as (to give just one example) their willingness to share sex fantasies with a partner. And, most importantly, it shows up in people's assessments of their sex lives overall. This is primarily true of people who had been heavily religious before their deconversion. On a scale of 1 to 10 -- 1 being a sex life that was much worse after leaving religion, 10 being a sex life that was much improved -- people who'd had the most religious lives averaged at the very high number of 7.81, and 61.6% gave an answer of 8, 9 or 10 -- greatly improved. People with little or no religion in their life before they became atheists mostly report that their sex lives didn't change that much.

In fact, for the handful of atheists who reported that their sex lives worsened when they left religion -- 2.2% of participants -- almost all tell the exact same story: Their sex lives got worse because... well, to put it bluntly, their partners or potential partners were still religious, and now that they were atheists, they weren't getting any. Their spouses got upset because they'd become atheists; their pool of potential sex partners dried up. As one respondent commented, "My wife said to me, 'How can I sleep with someone who doesn't share my faith?'" And another, somewhat more waggishly: "When I was a Christian I could lay any girl in church, now that I am an atheist, they won't even talk to me."

And perhaps one of the most powerful messages in this report -- if one of the least surprising -- is the decidedly negative effect of religion on sexual education and information. People raised in more strongly religious homes ranked the quality of their sex education as significantly worse than people raised in less religious homes: 2.4 on a five-point scale, as opposed to 3.2 from the less religious folks. And more religious kids were less likely to get sex information from their parents than the less religious ones -- 13.5%, as opposed to 38.2% -- and more likely to get it from personal sexual experience and pornography.

In case the irony of this is escaping anyone, I'm going to hammer it in: The highly religious, "family values" crowd are more likely to get their sexual information from porn and fooling around... while the less religious folks are more likely to talk to their parents. And in case anyone's wondering why sex information is being included in this study on sexual happiness: Accurate sex education and information has been consistently shown to be one of the cornerstones of a happy, satisfying sex life.

Which, again, atheists are a lot more likely to have.

Happy Endings

So what should this research say to believers?

Well, the most obvious message should be: "Come on in -- the water's fine."

In debates with atheists, many believers will argue for religion on the basis of how good it makes them feel. They'll argue that religion is emotionally useful, psychologically useful, socially useful: that religion gives people a sense of meaning, moral guidance, comfort in hard times, etc. It's an argument that drives many atheists up a tree -- myself included -- since it has absolutely nothing to do with whether religion is, you know, true. (Believing in Santa Claus might make kids happy and better-behaved, but you wouldn't argue that people should keep putting cookies by the fireplace on Christmas Eve well into their adult years.)

But if this report is to be believed, then this argument is conclusively shown to be bogus... even on its own terms. At least when it comes to sex. (It's probably bogus when it comes to the rest of our lives as well -- or rather, it would be bogus if our society didn't privilege religious belief and treat atheism with bigotry and contempt. Countries with higher rates of atheism actually have higher levels of happiness and social functioning than more religious countries. But I digress.)

Religion doesn't make people happier. Not in the sack, anyway. Religion makes people less happy. Leaving religion makes people happier. There's no reason to hang on to beliefs you don't actually believe in and that don't actually make sense to you, just because you can't imagine a happy and fulfilling life without them. We know that leaving religion can be a scary and painful process... but once it's behind you, life is good. And the sex is great. Come on in. The water's fine.

And what does report this say to atheists?

This report, people, is our sales pitch.

Again, I will make this very clear: The fact that atheists fuck better has no bearing whatsoever on whether atheism is correct. And atheists should not pretend that it does.

But when believers make the argument from utility -- when they argue that religion is important and necessary because it makes people happy -- we don't have to just tear our hair out and say, "Does not! Does not!" We can print out this report, and hand it to them with a smile.

A satisfied smile.

Are All Religions Equally Crazy?

This piece was originally published on AlterNet. Please note the addendum at the end about my use of the word "crazy" in this piece.

*

Are less established religions really crazier than older mainstream ones? Or are mainstream religions just more familiar?

Does any religion make more sense than any other?

Atheists, by definition, don't think any religion has any reasonable likelihood of being true. And yet, for some weird reason, we're often asked to choose between them. Believers often accuse us of ignoring more moderate and progressive religions while we trash the low-hanging fruit of hard-line fundamentalism. We're accused of disregarding sophisticated modern theology so we can zero in on the simplistic faiths held by the hoi polloi. (Neither accusation is fair; many atheists, including myself, have taken aim at both modern theology and progressive religion, and in any case fundamentalism and other widely-held religions are valid targets for critique -- but that's another rant.) Yet at the same time, many believers seek our approval for their particular beliefs. "Sure," they'll say, "a lot of those other religions are silly -- but my religion makes sense! Don't you agree? Don't you? Huh?"

For the most part, it's a game I don't like to play. I think all religions are equally implausible, equally based on cognitive biases, equally unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever. But sometimes, the battiness of a particular religion is powerfully borne in on me, to the point where it becomes impossible to ignore. And it forces me to consider the question: Is this religion really any more batty than any other? Or is it just less popular? Less familiar? Is it simply newer, and thus has had less time for the more wildly ragged edges of its wackiness to smooth out? Is this religion really as crazy as it seems -- or are all religions equally crazy?

Magic Hats Versus Magic Snakes

First, just to be very clear: I'm not saying that all religious believers are crazy. I'm saying that religious beliefs are crazy. I'm criticizing the ideas, not the people. And when I say "crazy" (or "nutty" or "batshit" or "lunatic" or what have you), I don't mean "literally, clinically mentally ill." I mean "crazy" in the colloquial sense. I mean... well, I'll get to that.

I was in Salt Lake City a few weeks ago giving a talk, and I took the opportunity to visit the Mormon Temple Square. If you're not a Mormon, you can't go inside the Mormon Temple itself; but Temple Square has all sorts of attractions for the non-Mormon visitor, including the tabernacle, the assembly hall... and two different visitors' centers, specifically designed to explain Mormonism to the non-Mormon, and to make the religion seem inspiring, and to entice people into the faith.

I have no doubt that it has that effect on many people. Mormonism is one of the fastest-growing religions on the planet; there must be something about it that people like. But its effect on me... Well, it was inspiring, all right. It inspired me right into a rollercoaster ride of hilarity and horror. It inspired me, at one point, to out-loud laughter that I was literally, physically unable to control. It inspired me to get the hell off their property, take several deep breaths, and rant incoherently with my wife about what an appalling nightmare of indoctrination and brainwashing it was, before we plunged back in. It inspired me to work on my atheist activism ten times harder than I ever had. Its effect on me was not to entice me into the faith. Its effect was to make me think, even more strongly than I had before, "This religion is batshit crazy."

But then I started thinking.

How much crazier is this, really, than any other religion?

Let's not mince words. There is some profoundly crazy stuff in Mormonism. The magic underwear. The retroactive baptism of the dead. Getting to be a god on your own planet after you die. The Garden of Eden being in Missouri. The foundational story of Joseph Smith reading secret magical golden plates through a magic hat. The baptismal font sitting on the backs of twelve cows. (Okay, fine, oxen. Still.) The washings and anointings and veils and temple garments and secret handshakes and other highly ritualized pseudo-Masonic ceremonies. Lying for the Lord. (No, really. Look it up.) The casual shrugging-off of well-known, thoroughly documented facts of history and archaeology that contradict Church doctrine. The shameless, barefaced retroactive continuity, to the point of actually lying about the religion's history. ("Polygamy is not a central tenet of Mormonism, and it never was. Racial bigotry is not a central tenet of Mormonism, and it never was. Stop looking at The Book of Mormon. No, stop it. We'll tell you what our religion says, thank you very much.") Mormonism loves to present a wholesome, clean-cut image of almost obsessive normality to the public... but when you scratch the surface, what you see is howling, chaotic lunacy. That assessment may seem harsh -- but if these ideas were presented in any context other than a religious one, nobody would be debating it.

But then I started thinking:

How much crazier is this than any other religion?

How much crazier is this than talking snakes? People living inside giant fish? Boats that carry two of every living creature on the planet? Magic crackers that turn into the body of your god when you eat them? Magic fruit that ruins the lives of all your descendants? Virgins giving birth? Sprinkling magic water on babies so if they die they won't burn forever in Hell? A planet that was created 6,000 years ago, despite an overwhelming body of evidence to the contrary from every relevant scientific field? A god who sacrifices himself to himself to save the world from the punishment he himself was planning to dole out?

And let's not just pick on Christianity. How much crazier is this than ritual washing in a polluted magic river? Transferring your sins to a live chicken, waving it over your head, and having it slaughtered? Transferring your sins to a bundle of money, waving it over your head, and donating the money to charity, because the chicken thing is just too weird? The compulsory covering of women's bodies from head to toe? The compulsory wearing of hats? A god who's okay with you smoking weed, but doesn't want you drinking alcohol? A god who's okay with you drinking alcohol, but doesn't want you smoking weed? A god who doesn't want you to draw pictures of real things? A god who wants you to cut off your daughter's clitoris? A god who wants you to cut off the tip of your baby boy's penis?

Plenty of religions are loaded with crazy when you scratch the surface. You don't even have to scratch very hard.

So why do these older, more mainstream religions seem less crazy?

A lot of it, I think, is popularity. If lots of people believe something, we're more likely to give it credibility. This is a bias that all human brains are vulnerable to, and it's largely unconscious. (Although many religious believers will make this argument consciously and overtly. Spend enough time in the atheist blogosphere, and I guarantee you'll see it pop up: "How can you dismiss something that so many people believe in?") We're social animals, and we're wired to think that if everyone else thinks something, it's probably true. Or at the very least, that it's not batshit insane on the face of it, and we ought to give it serious consideration.

From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, this bias makes sense. Other people can, in fact, be a useful reality check: if everyone in your tribe is screaming "Tiger!" and you don't see one, it still makes sense to run. But it's a confounding bias to contend with when you're rigorously examining a truth claim. It makes it hard to voice unpopular perceptions... and indeed even to conceive of them. It's very, very difficult to be the first person to say out loud, "The Emperor has no clothes." It's even more difficult to say it to ourselves.

Then adding to this de-crazification phenomenon, we have the power of time. In the earlier days of a religion, the battier elements are much more prominent. But with time, if a religion flourishes and becomes more mainstream, the rough edges get smoothed off. "Our Savior is returning within a generation" turns into "Our Savior is returning one of these days." "You have to wear a ginormous hat all the time" turns into "It'd be nice if you wore a little hat in the temple." "God created the entire universe out of nothing in six days" turns into "God created matter and energy and the laws of physics and let them unfold into life as we know it, and when we say 'day' we don't mean a literal 'day,' and it's absurd and unfair for you to think that we do." The battier elements get abandoned entirely, or get hidden out of sight, or get shoved to the back burner as trivial and peripheral, or start being seen as metaphorical instead of literal. (45% of all U.S. Catholics don't even know that, according to the doctrine of their own Catholic Church, the magic cracker literally becomes the body of their god when they eat it. They think it's symbolic. They apparently weren't paying attention in catechism class.)

The fascinating thing about Mormonism is that we can see this process happening in real time. As a religion founded within the last two centuries, during a time of good historical record-keeping, Mormonism is an intriguing case study of how a religion transforms from a despised fringe cult to a popular branch of mainstream modern faith. And part of that picture is the ways that the fringier elements have either been abandoned wholesale or kept out of the public eye. .. and indeed kept out of the eyes of its own adherents until they've already bought in. (Mormonism even has a "milk before meat" concept: teach the easy, non-controversial stuff about Mormonism first, and wait to teach the batty stuff until adherents are too deeply invested to leave.) The degree to which Mormonism has become mainstream is the degree to which the less digestible nuts have been eliminated from the fruitcake.

But most of this phenomenon, I think, is simple familiarity.

I didn't learn about magic Mormon underwear until I was an adult. So when I did, the battiness of the belief smacked me in the face. I was like, "Really? Magic underwear? Really?" And the same was true for the magic hat, and the secret handshakes, and the Garden of Eden being in Missouri, and so on and so on. Every time I learn something new about Mormonism and Mormon history, it's... well, it's new. And I can see its craziness with fresh eyes.

But I've known about magic crackers and talking snakes since I was very young. So they just seemed normal. Part of the cultural landscape. I didn't believe in them -- but for years, I didn't think about them very hard. And again, because these beliefs were widely held, when I did think about them I gave them more credit than they actually deserved.

So is it fair to think that Mormonism -- or Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientology, or any other relatively new religion -- is really any crazier than more mainstream religions? Is it fair to think that it's crazier than the mainstream varieties of Catholicism or Baptism, Hinduism or Buddhism, Judaism or Islam?

I spent my day at Temple Square going back and forth on this question. One minute, I'd be thinking, "Well, okay, this is pretty nuts... but it's not really any crazier than magic crackers and magic snakes." The next minute, I'd be confronted with some new form of wacko, and I'd be thinking, "No, this really is crazier."

So which is it?

I think the answer depends on what exactly we mean by "crazy."

Crazy Is as Crazy Does

Like I said earlier, when I say "crazy" here, I don't mean "mentally ill." I mean... well, what, exactly?

If by "crazy" we mean "out of step with cultural norms"... then yes, Mormonism really is crazier. Pretty much by definition. To some extent, battiness and reasonableness are defined by social norms. In the Victorian era, it was considered entirely normal for women to wear tightly-laced corsets, all day, every day of their adult lives, to the point where their physical functioning was seriously impaired and their internal organs were deformed. In modern society, doing this would generally be considered pretty damn freaky. Instead, many women in modern society wear high-heeled shoes that impair their functioning and deform their feet, all day, every day of their adult lives... and this is considered standard, non-crazy behavior. So yes, by this definition, the more mainstream a religion is, the less crazy it is. And so yes, by this definition, Mormonism is crazier than, say, Catholicism.

But if what you mean by "crazy" is "out of touch with reality"?

Then it's all equally crazy.

Any belief in a supernatural world that affects the natural one is equally implausible, equally the product of cognitive biases, equally unsupported by any good evidence. Some religions contradict reality quite blatantly, flatly stating that well-established historical and scientific facts aren't true. (Young-earth Creationism does this with basic facts of evolution; Mormonism does it with basic facts of human history.) Other religions do a better job of presenting a plausible face and shoehorning their beliefs around reality. (The standard progressive Christian belief in theistic evolution is Exhibit A. Theistic evolution is entirely inconsistent with even the most basic facts of evolution, but these believers can still convincingly tell themselves and others, "No, no, we think science is great, of course we accept evolution, we're not out of touch with reality.")

But all religions are out of touch with reality. All religions are implausible, based on cognitive biases, and unsupported by any good evidence whatsoever. All of them ultimately rely on faith -- i.e., an irrational attachment to a pre-existing idea regardless of any evidence that contradicts it -- as the core foundation of their belief. All of them contort, ignore, or deny reality in order to maintain their attachment to their faith.

And by that definition, all religions are equally crazy.

Some just hide their craziness better than others.

*

Note: I have read the comments criticizing my colloquial use of the word "crazy" in this piece, and am seriously considering them. I'm not sure I agree with them, and I'm a bit puzzled at the automatic assumption that I don't have any experience myself with mental illness. (That's not, in fact, the case. I've struggled with depression off and on for most of my adult life, and while I don't currently consider myself as someone with mental illness, I am someone with a history of mental illness, and I have to carefully manage my life so as to minimize a chance of a recurrence.) But I have heard the criticisms, and I am taking them seriously. I've decided to go ahead and reprint this piece as originally written, with the original language, since I think it's important that the stuff I write for AlterNet be archived here in more or less its original form. (Especially since the comment threads on AlterNet are so -- how shall I put this? -- challenging, and re-posting them here gives my readers a chance to discuss my pieces in a more welcoming forum.) But the message has been received, and I'll be re-thinking this language in the future.

TEAM AWESOME IS VICTORIOUS!

We are the champions, my friend
And we'll keep on fighting 'til the end...

The scrappy underdogs have won it!

In the epic battle to raise more money for Camp Quest -- the kids' camp for children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other non-supernaturalists -- Team Awesome/ Beat PZ -- made up of me, Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist, Jen McCreight of Blag Hag, JT Eberhard of WWJTD?, Digital Cuttlefish at The Digital Cuttlefish, Sikivu Hutchinson at Black Skeptics Group, Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism, The Chaplain at An Apostate's Chapel, C.L. Hanson at Letters From a Broad, and Matt Dillahunty at The Atheist Experience -- has raised $13,550.06. $1,868.73 of which was matched by the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. For a total of $15,418.79.

And PZ Myers at Pharyngula, Lone Squidly Overlord, has raised a paltry $13,016.01. $1,640.00 of which was matched by the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. For a total of $14,656.01.

Raising -- just so we don't lose sight of the actual point of all this -- a grand total between all of us of $30,074.80 for Camp Quest, the kids' camp for children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other non-supernaturalists.

WE ARE VICTORIOUS!

Yes, yes, I know. PZ tried to play us. In a pathetic attempt to save face, with the prospect of humiliating defeat bearing down on him, PZ tried to throw the match -- asking his minions to support our team instead of his, and pretending that Team Awesome's noble offer to make fools of ourselves in public was his master plan all along. Yeah, right. Nice try. Kind of sad, really.

So yes. Ahem. Re that "making fools of ourselves in public" bit.

[looks around frantically for an exit]

Yes, I'm on it. At the Secular Student Alliance conference in July, I will take to the karaoke stage, and pop my karaoke cherry. I will post the video, on this blog and on Facebook. I will do a solo -- no, I don't yet know what song -- AND I encourage any and all members of Team Awesome who are at the conference to join me on stage for a stirring rendition of "We Are The Champions." PZ is speaking at the conference as well, and if he's man squid enough, he'll attend the Karaoke Victory Ritual as well, and suck up his defeat in person.

Altruism is so much fun. Many, many thanks to everyone who played. Thanks to everyone on Team Awesome. Thanks to the Stiefel Freethought Foundation. Thanks, even, to our worthy opponent PZ Myers, who made this an epic and hilarious battle. And most of all -- thanks to everyone who donated to Camp Quest. For either team. This is a truly worthy cause, and we've improved the lives of a whole bunch of freethought families. If godlessness really means that we have no moral compass and can just do whatever we want to do, then apparently what we want to do is help other people.

And because I can't finish this on a sappy note, I'm going to finish with a stirring round of rubbing it in.

We are the champions
We are the champions,
No time for losers
'Cause we are the champions
Of the WOOOOORLD!

Camp Quest Fundraising Contest - Matching Offer for the Final Hours!

The Camp Quest Fundraising Contest is in its final hours -- it ends at 2pm Eastern time today -- and an amazingly awesome monkey wrench has just been thrown into the works.

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation has just pledged a 1 to 1 match of up to $5,000 per team for the last 3 hours of the contest!

The Stiefel Freethought Foundation is a a 501(c)3 non-profit private foundation that provides financial support and volunteer strategy consulting to the Freethought Movement. And if you donate to the Camp Quest Fundraising Contest -- to either side, either to Team Awesome/ Beat PZ or to Beat PZ -- your donation will be doubled by the foundation. Everything above $11,681.33 for Beat PZ and $11,376.01 for Team PZ will be matched, up to $5,000 per team.

But you have to do it NOW. You have only a few hours. So donate to Camp Quest now! Donate through Team Awesome if you like scrappy underdogs. Donate through Team PZ if you like conniving cephalopods. I don't even care. At this point, I've actually lost track of the complex, Machiavellian, "if we win, PZ wins, but if PZ loses, then we lose, unless we also win, in which case we really win" machinations. (Although I still want you to support Team Awesome/ Beat PZ. And I still say that if we win, then we win, and PZ's efforts to throw the fight were simply a sad attempt to save face in the view of almost certain defeat.)

In case you haven't been following the saga, here -- quickly copied and pasted from my last post about it, so I can get this up in time -- are the details. Donate NOW -- and get your donation doubled!

*

I am prepared to publicly humiliate myself for atheism.

And so are Matt Dillahunty, Adam Lee, JT Eberhard, and Jen McCreight.

One-time offer. Take it or leave it.

Here's the deal. There's the blogger contest I've been gassing on about, a competition to see who can raise more money for Camp Quest, the kids' camp for children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists, and other non-supernaturalists. The contest is between Team Awesome on one side -- a bunch of scrappy underdog atheist bloggers, with me, Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist, Jen McCreight of Blag Hag, JT Eberhard of WWJTD?, Digital Cuttlefish at The Digital Cuttlefish, Sikivu Hutchinson at Black Skeptics Group, Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism, The Chaplain at An Apostate's Chapel, C.L. Hanson at Letters From a Broad, and Matt Dillahunty at The Atheist Experience -- and on the opposing team, PZ Myers, evil cephalopod overlord at Pharyngula, all by his lonesome on the other side.

You may have noticed that there are more players on Team Awesome than had been originally announced. That's because we are amoral atheists.We took a page from the religious apologists' handbook, moved the goalposts, and frantically rounded up a bunch of other atheist bloggers to battle for our side.

And yet, as of this writing, PZ is... what's that word?... winning. Not by much -- we're closing in, and have narrowed the gap to less than $2,000 -- but we only have a few days to finish the job. If we don't raise more money for Camp Quest by June 1, PZ will officially pwn each and every one of us.

We can't let that happen. Well, okay, we can... but we really, really don't want to.

So a few of us have agreed to make fools of ourselves in public for the cause. If Team Awesome wins, the following bloggers will make the following absurd public gestures:

* Since PZ Myers has offered to shave his beard into a hideous '80s mustache if he wins -- and really, you should donate to our side for that reason alone -- Adam Lee at Daylight Atheism has agreed to grow a beard if Team Awesome wins. Thus preserving Atheist Blogger Beard Homeostasis, and preventing the world as we know it from collapsing into some sort of hideous beardly space-time nexus.

* Matt Dillahunty at The Atheist Experience TV program will do one episode of the show in drag.

* JT Eberhard of WWJTD? will shave his head... and wax his legs.

* Jen McCreight at Blag Hag will attempt to learn how to ride a bicycle, and, in her words, "videotape the whole inevitably hilarious experience."

* C.L. Hanson at Letters from a Broad will organize a showtunes sing-along.

And what will Greta Christina do? I hear you cry.

* Greta Christina -- she said, with a quiver of dread in her voice -- will do karaoke.

Let me be very clear about this: I have never done karaoke. I have never wanted to do karaoke. I am a karaoke virgin.

But if Team Awesome wins the Camp Quest fundraising challenge, I will pop my karaoke cherry.

And I will get it on video, and post the video to this blog and to my Facebook page.

You can't pass that up, can you?

You have until June 1. Here's the ChipIn widget. Make it so!

Oh, right. The actual cause we're raising money for. You probably want to know a little more about that, don't you?

If you're not familiar with them, Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States aimed at the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view. The purpose of Camp Quest is to provide children of freethinking parents a residential summer camp dedicated to improving the human condition through rational inquiry, critical and creative thinking, scientific method, self-respect, ethics, competency, democracy, free speech, and the separation of religion and government.

The nontheist community offers many programs for adults, but very few for children. To provide a future for our values we need to provide freethinking families with a place for their kids to find community, develop critical thinking skills, and learn ethics and values. Fortunately, that is what Camp Quest is all about. Well, that, and all of the summer camp fun that you can pack into a week.

Camp Quest builds a community for children and teenagers from atheist, agnostic, humanist and other freethinking families. They provide campers a place to explore their developing worldviews, ask questions, and make friends in an environment supportive of critical thinking and skepticism. Camp Quest is open to campers from all backgrounds. They encourage campers to think for themselves, be comfortable with who they are, and engage respectfully with people who have different views.

And yes, Camp Quest is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, and donations are tax deductible.

You can help support this awesome cause, strengthen the future of the atheist community... and help stave off the crushing arms of PZ's cephalopod army! Just click on the handy Chipin widget. That number again:



How can you pass this up? Get that jolt of good altruism chemicals in your brain... and get the entertainment value of seeing your favorite atheist bloggers make public spectacles of themselves! It's win-win!