wbc and dummies like me

In the past week, the members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeca, Kansas have come to the attention of news media even here in far off Australia because of a case being heard in the US Supreme Court which challenges church members' First Amendment rights. WBC members apparently picketed the funeral of Matthew Snyder, a US Marine killed in Iraq four years ago. Snyder's father, Albert, subsequently sued the WBC for damages on grounds of mental suffering he claims he endured when his son's funeral was turned into a WBC debacle. In the current case, Albert Snyder is appealing the overturning of that court decision in which he had been awarded $11 million.

As probably everyone but me already knew, WBC, led by founder Fred Phelps, regularly pickets military funerals claiming that God had killed the serviceman or woman to make a point, and that he enjoyed doing it. WBC's website states that they have carried out 44, 286 such protests so far. Church members wave large, colourful signs at these events which bear such frank slogans as "God Hates Fags", "God Hates America", "God Hates You", "Your Pastor is a Whore", "The Jews killed Jesus", "Aids Cures Fags" and "God Hates Your Feelings". Subtle WBC is not.

WBC targets high-profile funerals, such as that of brutally murdered gay student Matthew Shepard, in order to attract maximum media attention. They are doing a great job with that. According to one report WBC's membership totals less that 100 adults, over 80% of whom WBC admits are related to each other by birth or marriage. For such a small and exclusive group WBC has a very, very loud voice.

WBC's main webite www.godhatesfags.com is a fascinating read. There they state their position on numerous issues supplying a smorgasbord of Bible references in support of each. In a nutshell, if I'm understanding them rightly, here's are some of their core beliefs:

• The Bible is the Word of God
• Sodomy, sex outside of marriage, adultery, divorce and remarriage are all sins and those who are guilty of them will burn in hell for eternity
• People who have had an abortion, likewise
• In fact, God hates everyone who is not among his chosen - the Elect
• Only God's chosen will make it to heaven - eternal damnation awaits the rest of us
• Pastors who preach that God loves the non-Elect are lying whores
• America supports homosexuality and divorce and is, therefore, doomed to destruction 
• Disasters like 9/11, Hurricanes Katrina & Rita and the Boxing Day Tsunami are all evidences that God's blessing has been removed from those nations. Indeed, those tragedies were brought about by God to make that very point
• God laughs when sinners die
• God is especially glad when soldiers die - anyone who would fight for a country that tolerates homosexuality is, by definition, not a friend of God's
• God particularly hates non-elect Jews and will ensure they burn in hell (see WBC website www.JewsKilledJesus.com)
• If you've missed the hit list so far you should know that sending your kids to public school qualifies you for the lake of fire

WBC members consider themselves Calvinists in that they hold to the well-known Five Points of Calvinism sometimes known as TULIP. This means, in part, that WBC believes than mankind is intrinsically sinful and cannot choose to reach out to God of his own volition. In this view, believers - the Elect, are saved by the grace of God, chosen by God to be saved. All those who do not belong to this group are destined to suffer an eternity of fully-conscious torture in Hell. Indeed, these folk were hand-selected by God for Hell before they were a twinkle in their Daddy's eye.

Although it would, I think, be true to say WBC share some of these views with many nice, ordinary Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterian churches, their extreme Calvinism perhaps accounts, at least in some degree, for the group's astonishing lack of compassion. Recent posts on WBC's blog Godsmacks, one of the many websites the group hosts, include one praising God that a Moslem child was killed by a monkey in Malaysia, and another rejoicing that so many gay and lesbian young people are committing suicide. The post which states, "Thank God Fewer Than Half of Americans Oppose Same-Sex Marriage" trumpets that this is great news indeed and clear evidence that the Lord's return is imminent.

I remember the moment I realised that personal testimonials aren't worth a smidge of rat doody. It was some years ago as I watched the video suicide note left behind by members the Heaven's Gate Cult. In it several young men - wide-eyed with rapture - described the incredible happiness they had enjoyed as a direct result of cutting off their testicles. They went on to explain that - joyous day - they were about to swallow cyanide in the happy anticipation of being collected by friendly aliens later that afternoon. The sincerity of their happiness was absolute. So... I'm not the one to be impressed by the glee of two of Fred Phelps' granddaughters as they explain in this video that, not only is it their God-honouring duty to be thrilled to bits when sinners suffer and die but that, even that if it weren't for the bonus of that putting them on the same page as God, they would find the sinner's misery pretty satisfying anyhow. Indeed it would be difficult to imagine even the most TULIPpy Calvinist failing to be a little disturbed at the bright-faced young things' giggly delight as they envisage the destruction of the damned.

While WBC allows that God can and does save some sinners - them for example - and that salvation, once you've got it, is keepsies for good, members are quick to cast out any in their midst who question WBC's beliefs or practices. This short documentary details the shunning of 24-year-old Lauren, oldest daughter of senior WBC member Steve Drayne. It is not so much that Steve and his wife voted with other WBC members to force their daughter to leave both the group and her home that I find shocking, but that Steve apparently experiences no sadness whatsoever about the loss of his child. Indeed, now that he realises Lauren is one of those predestined for Hell - the giveaway was Lauren's asking some sticky questions - Steve is genuinely glad to see the back of her.

Nate Phelps is one of only four of Fred Phelp's 16 children who have turned their backs on their parents' faith. As noted in this video, Nate's former friends and family at WBC aren't all that impressed with him as a result. But Nate is in good company - there are a lot of people who WBC don't like. Swedes for example. WBC don't like them *at all*. It's worth pasting here a section regarding the Boxing Day Tsunami from WBCs FAQ page as an example of the frothing venom WBC is capable of generating when their dander is fairly up.

Do you realize that among the dead and missing are 20,000 Swedes and over 3,000 Americans? Filthy Swedes went to Thailand - world epicenter of child sex traffic - to rape and sodomize little Thai boys and girls. 20,000 dead Swedes is to Sweden's population of 9 million as 650,000 would be to America's 290 million population. We sincerely hope and pray that all 20,000 Swedes are dead, their bodies bloated on the ground or in mass graves or floating at sea feeding sharks and fishes or in the bellies of thousands of crocodiles washed ashore by tsunamis. These filthy, faggot Swedes have a satanic, draconian law criminalizing Gospel preaching, under which they prosecuted, convicted and sentenced Pastor Ake Green to jail - thereby incurring God's irreversible wrath: "He suffered no man to do them wrong; yea, he reproved kings for their sakes; Saying, Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm." Psa. 105:14,15. America, who is awash in diseased fag feces & semen, and is an apostate land of the sodomite damned. Let us pray that God will send a massive Tsunami to totally devastate the North American continent with 1000-foot walls of water doing 500 mph -- even as islands in southern Asia have recently been laid waste, with but a small remnant surviving. And you wonder if this is the wrath of God?

But lest you mistakenly assume that WBC actually cares what happens to those 'little Thai boys and girls', they go on to explain that no-one is innocent, no matter his or her tender age and anyway...

...It is God's prerogative to kill children to punish their evil, Godless, vile, filthy parents and others who were raising them for the devil anyway; they are most certainly better off now than they were in the hands of such evil people...

Oh, well then. Just so long as they are better off.

WBC see themselves as modern day Jeremiahs preaching an eleventh hour sermon of repentance to a world hell-bent on destruction. They openly scoff at the suggestion that they ought to be praying for the lost, citing as their example the words of Christ in John 17. Remember, that's the scripture where Jesus states that he does not pray for the world but only for those the Father has given him. WBC accept the unlikely possibility that some may be saved in response to their 'preaching the truth' but they admit they don't care a whit either way. Their duty is just to preach the gospel, and God's business is to save - or, most likely, not. WBC seem pretty sure there aren't too many left on earth who are going to escape eternal and firey misery. They frequently make statements to the effect that the 'day of grace has passed' for the vast majority of us 'dummies'.

***

I've written in the past about drawing a distinction between radical Christian fundamentalism and the caring, intelligent, Bible-believing folk I know and love. But, although members of WBC are undoubtedly less shy about their views than most, as I read through their beliefs and practices, I was struck by how familiar much of it seemed. Certainly I know (and love) many self-professed Calvinists and would once have considered myself in that camp. Further, I personally know many Christians, who, for example, would agree that AIDS is God's judgement on homosexuality. And it's only a few months since I overheard a Christian woman at a homeschooling event explaining to the young non-Christian mother with whom she was attempting to share the gospel that the Boxing Day Tsunami was plainly God's judgement on Islam and Moslems. Evidently she hadn't twigged to the Swedes.

So all this has got me thinking: Are the members of WBC an aberration, a bizarre hate group that has little if anything in common with orthodox Christianity? Or are they, as they claim, just a bunch of good ol' Baptists who are willing to live and die on the ground of plain and honest doctrinal integrity? Are they dangerous fringe-Fundys? Or would it be true to say that many other Christians would agree - just quietly - that WBC's beliefs do indeed reflect the clear meaning of Scripture? I mean, although some of the fundies I have known wouldn't be saying so outside of select company, many do believe that God hates gays, and Jews, and Moslems and other unbelievers and that he is pretty chuffed when he sends some nasty suffering or other their way.

So I'm just asking the question: If God hates gays, where does it leave me...as I don't? Can I utterly reject the bigotry of the ilk propagated by WBC and yet keep Christ? Or am I going to have to admit that I am teetering on the brink of ditching Christianity altogether? Should I face up to the fact that I can no longer honestly claim to be Christian because there is more than one segment of the Bible with which I am probably never going to happily reconcile? Am I vainly trying to ignore the unpleasant fact that the Bible is, as so many have said, a sexist, misogynist, racist and homophobic document? Am I just attempting to build a new religion that suits me because the orthodoxy of the one I used to hold so dear I now find offensive in so many respects? Is it going to come down to Integrity OR Christ? And what will that mean in real life? What will that mean for me?

Clearly there is some thinking still to be done.

Oh, but before I sign off I need to mention that WBC specialises inmusical parodies. Would you forgive me if you missed 'Hey, Jews', 'Fat-bottomed Whore' or '50 Ways to Eat Your Baby'? Or if you are up for some light reading, you could try this fascinating treatise which takes subject of baby eating further than you can probably imagine.

kudos in the twittersphere

I'm in the process of writing my second assignment on Twitter. Until I began researching, I had never been near the medium. Now I can't tell enough people what an exciting, democratising innovation it is.

Through Twitter, I was able to get interviews with 2010 Australian Young Journalist of the Year Latika Bourke who, according to social media analysis done at Tribalytic was Australia's most influential tweeter on the #ausvotes hashtag during the 2010 federal election. I sent her a quick tweet asking for an interview, she tweeted back in minutes having 'followed' me so that she could direct message me and we set up a time.

I followed the same process with the ABC's chief online political reporter and Walkley Award winner, Annabel Crabb. She's such a celebrity now that I just couldn't get to her through the usual channels. Multiple emails to ABC got me nowhere. But one quick tweet and I had the kindly Annabel on the line assisting me with my assignment. As a big fan of Annabel's writing, it was a pretty exciting moment for me.

My initial assignment on Twitter concerned the layering of tweets into on-screen content on television programs like the ABC's Q & A. The first time I tried to follow a parallel tweet-stream while watching the on-screen debate I felt like I was being hit in the head with a radio tuned to talk-back. But I got the hang after a couple of times. In the end, it became fun, a real event, and something I would have liked to continue - but with NSW changing over the Summertime, alas, Q & A won't be screening live to Queensland until March next year. I, along with other northern #qanda fans will be relegated to tweeting to each other as we catch up with the program...but will not enjoy the excitement of competing for on-screen kudos.

Anyway, Q & A generates so much Twitter conversation that it sometimes is still at the top of the Twitter world-wide trending chart 24 hours after it goes to air. And because Q & A actively encourages the twittisphere to engage with the program by selecting tweets to appear onscreen, #qanda tweeters strive to outdo each other for wittiness and publishability.

Which brings me to my point. This morning, I read this article by Jonathan Green in The Drum in which he discusses the king-like demeanour of former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, which remained unruffled even when a disgruntled protester pitched his shoes at him during last week's Q & A.  His point is that Howard still looks like a man in charge, still exudes a statesman-like presence. And then he reveals that indeed that is to be the theme of this weekend's The Spectator Australia who will be running the headline, 'Remember when Australia had a real PM?'

And there it is. That headline was one of the tweets that appeared on-screen during last week's Q & A. Tweets have managed to move from obscurity, to an ABC on-screen presence, to influencing front page content of serious political media. There is going to be one happy tweeter out there. And 10,000 more who will redouble their efforts to better him.

wooot, woooooot!!

Assignments back from CMM17 and CMM18 - both HDs!

Doing the happy conga.

annabel on the death of journalism

The following is a text version of Annabel Crabb's AN Smith lecture in journalism, delivered on October 27, 2010 at Melbourne University.

The end of journalism as we know it (and other good news).

a liberal/conservative dialogue

I'd love to have time to write my thoughts about everything I'm learning but I don't. But rather than just let them pass me by, I'm going to post them. Who knows? I may be able to get back to them sometime.

Can't get this video to embed....but here's the link.

major changes

Just wanted to note here that I've rewritten my study plan and changed my Major from Communications to History and Politics. I'm still going a bunch of Communications subjects as well as some Sociology. I'm happier about it. It feels much more like me. But I'm not going to feel embarrassed if I that's not the last time I fiddle with my course.

I've enrolled in my next two units:

GEN11 - Gender, History and Culture
HST110 - The Making of Australia

If I follow this plan, I don't need to do the Liberal Studies degree but will fit right into the Griffith BA program. The student advisor thinks that's a better place to sit for post-study vocational kudos. I'm not sure it matters but I'm happy with that.

I'm excited!

I also want to note that there has been some interest in another blog I keep. The moderator of the internet's largest blog on that subject has asked whether she can crosspost some of my writings and run them weekly as a series. I was reluctant at first as I don't want to editorialise that blog to suit others but she's assured me she'll take the posts as is.

It's a nice feeling that my writing is improving and that there are people apart from friends and family who are enjoying it.

dipping her toe in the water

As part of my News and Politics subject I've had to conduct interviews with various people. For my current assignment I needed to speak to at least one politician about a political subject. I found it's not so easy to get to these people as you might think.

Initially I had trouble getting through to ABC political journalist, Annabel Crabb, one of my heroes but, I thought, much to famous to talk to me. I wasn't able to reach her by the usual ABC channels so in the end I tweeted her. She replied quickly and called me for a chat. I was so excited I could hardly breathe. Silly I suppose but after 20 years at home with my kids, it was a red letter day for me. Annabel was, as I had expected, intelligent, articulate and absolutely gracious. I got a really good interview and have high hopes for this assignment.

Getting to a politician proved harder. Bob Brown's minders wouldn't let me near him and Malcolm Turnbull wouldn't even reply to my emails. I decided I needed to downgrade. As I am writing about politicans using Twitter, I tracked down Shayne Neumann, one of only six Qld federal politicians who uses Twitter. Parliament is sitting this week but I managed to book an interview and, yesterday, Shayne called from Canberra.

Former lawyer and second-term ALP member for Blaire, Shayne Neumann is a very interesting fellow. I quickly got through my 10 questions and that was all good. But Shayne generously allowed us to wandering into other conversation. We talked about same-sex marriage, euthanasia, refugees, Tony Abbott and party politics. We discussed the undemocratic nature of conscience voting, the hung parliament, feminism, feminists and social justice issues. I learned a great deal about the Labor Party and have a renewed respect for hard working MPs.

Actually, talking to Shayne was a real thrill. It was encouraging to converse with such an intelligent, articulate, political moderate. I'm feeling more and more encouraged that there may be some way I can understand and participate in the world after all. And for someone who is trying not to have too many opinions, I found I have quite a few. I'm starting to really enjoy this.

the politics of sexual assault

Here's an interesting article by Lauren Rosewarne that discusses the Advertising Standards Board's decision to remove the Calvin Klein ad discussed in the previous post. Rosewarn makes the point that this is an unusual decision by the ABS as they decided to ban it after agreeing it's 'overall impact' did 'suggest rape'. Making that kind of moral judgement is apparently a first first for the usually free and easy ABS.

And, as the writer goes on to explain, there are so many other good reasons to ban this ad including that it is overtly sexual and so inappropriate content for a public billboard.

But in an effort to appear cosmopolitan and secular, and to underline that she is not in the Christian wowser camp, Rosewarn piffs at those who might object on grounds that the ad hints at sexual assault and says that it doesn't do women any favours to ignore the fact that many of us desire and consent to group sex. It's a slightly less irritating argument than the 'it's Art' nonsense that's been circulating but still misses the point.

A comment which appeared under the article summed it up so well, I thought I'd post it here and leave it at that:


Abigail Bray :

"According to popular stereotypes feminists who refuse to titter over the latest shock and awe tactic of corporate misogyny are members of those embarrassing others, the 'moral panic' population, that group of repressive bores, Christians, angry moralizing mums, unsophisticated reactionary lower-middle class wowers and hairy hard core 70s style feminists the cool intelligentsia loves to mock. Sometimes these stereotypes, however, are just so misguided. 'Moral panic' is an educated insult designed to simplify, silence and humiliate political critiques which threaten mainstream misogyny. Predictably people who use the term as an insult then set up a reactionary binary between 'moral panic' types (them) who have big heavy issues with sex in general and the more relaxed fun loving sexual sophisticates (us). All in the name of informing the reader that sex is 'complicated', that women and men are 'complicated'. To be against 'moral panics' is to be tolerant of (sexual) complexity. But the stereotypes which support this heroic championing of difference are far from tolerant, far from complex. Of course some women might squint and squint and just see a CK advert, but for others the image is part of the complex politics of violence against women. It's unkind to diagnose the politics of their gaze as wowser hysteria. Taking down this image is not just about the image alone, it is a political protest against rape."

fleeing from the stench of the despised

"Oblonsky took in and read a liberal paper, not an extreme one, but one advocating the views held by the majority. And in spite of the fact that science, art, and politics had no special interest for him, he firmly held those views on all these subjects which were held by the majority and by his paper, and he only changed them when the majority changed them--or, more strictly speaking, he did not change them, but they imperceptibly changed of themselves within him.

Oblonsky had not chosen his political opinions or his views; these political opinions and views had come to him of themselves, just as he did not choose the shapes of his hat and coat, but simply took those that were being worn. And for him, living in a certain society--owing to the need, ordinarily developed at years of discretion, for some degree of mental activity--to have views was just as indispensable as to have a hat. If there was a reason for his preferring liberal to conservative views, which were held also by many of his circle, it arose not from his considering liberalism more rational, but from its being in closer accordance with his manner of life. The liberal party said that in Russia everything is wrong, and certainly Oblonsky had many debts and was decidedly short of money. The liberal party said that marriage is an institution quite out of date, and that it needs reconstruction; and family life certainly afforded Oblonsky little gratification, and forced him into lying and hypocrisy, which was so repulsive to his nature. The liberal party said, or rather allowed it to be understood, that religion is only a curb to keep in check the barbarous classes of the people; and Oblonsky could not get through even a short service without his legs aching from standing up, and could never make out what was the object of all the terrible and high-flown language about another world when life might be so very amusing in this world. And with all this, Oblonsky, who liked a joke, was fond of puzzling a plain man by saying that if he prided himself on his origin, he ought not to stop at Rurik and disown the first founder of his family--the monkey. And so Liberalism had become a habit of Oblonsky, and he liked his newspaper, as he did his cigar after dinner, for the slight fog it diffused in his brain."

I love this piece from Tolstoy's Anna Karenina. Oblonsky is so like the majority of us. So like me. We read what we know will suit us, we are able to sideline opposing views with brief, insulting epithets and our ideologies remain cloistered and unchallenged - all evidence that there may be alternatives views which could broaden our knowledge notwithstanding.

And, interestingly, I find this narrow-minded, self-serving anti-intellectualism is not limited to the Christian fundamentalists - although some of them do specialise in ignoring arguments from people they already know are 'wrong' on the basis that they don't serve the right God. Secularists, feminists and leftists as well as all varieties conservatives share a tendency to stick their fingers in their ears and shout loudly rather than listen patiently to the ideas of those they in general despise.

This week I've been interested to follow Melinda Tankard Reist as she discussed the new Calvin Klein ad which provocatively depicts what could just possibly be taken to be a gang rape. Clearly as an advertising strategy it was a clever ploy - CK has once again been able to generate a great deal of free advertising in the wake of a risque photo shoot - so they are probably not too worried that the Australian Advertising Standards Board has now ordered the billboard be removed saying the ad was 'suggestive of sexual violence against women'. 

The outcry against the CK ad was lead in Australia by Reist and Collective Shout a group which opposes the use of sexualised images of women and girls for the purpose of selling products. The funny thing is, although you might think that valuing women as multi-faceted creatures and standing against efforts to exploit and abuse women and girls might be an issue that all feminists would be keen to support, strangely this seems not to be so.

If the comments under Reist's article which touches on her disgust at visiting the recent Sexpo event are anything to go by, no right-thinking feminist or red-blooded man should listen to any of her arguments because Reist clearly hates men, is probably (gasp) religious and doesn't like sex. They seem not to hear that Reist is criticising a practice which she believes leads to the actual harm of women and girls, or that she is concerned about a culture which teaches that women are only of use so far as they are sexually attractive to men and sexually compliant to same.

It astounds me that the exploitive elements of Sexpo and the CK ad remain unaddressed in the torrent of anti-wowser shouting down that follows Reist's articles. Are feminists so committed to avoiding all connection with Conservatism and Christianity that they are willing to allow that women will be abused in the name of liberated sexuality? Surely the value in feminism is in it's freeing women to be fully valued for the entirety of their selves and not just their their freedom to participate in their own sexploitation.

Anyway, I'm doing some thinking about whether or not it is possible to be a thinking, functioning political animal without penning oneself into a blinkered, slogan chanting paradigm. I'd like to imagine that I'll ultimately find a political space where I can feel comfortable - but not too comfortable. A place where I can be given the freedom to continue to grow and learn and develop my own worldview. Still looking....

beiberphobia

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-net-is-already-censored-and-not-by-the-government/

What is it with the almost universal criticism of Justin Beiber? I admit I haven't seen more than a wee snip of one of his music clips but he didn't strike me as so evil as to be worthy of all this negative attention.

I think I must hear some smirking TV presenter or other make a snide comment about poor wee Justin daily.  It's assumed to be an in-joke - a given - that any right thinking person will despise the lad. He's the fall-back joke of the lazy humourist. Any time some funny fellow wants to refer to something we *don't* like, just a mention of the universally shared distaste for all things Justin will get a guaranteed giggle.

What is that? Poppy slashing gone mad? He's just a little guy who sings sappy pop songs that the pre-teen girlies like, isn't he? Can't we handle that? I really think the adults on the planet could stand to do a bit of growing up. Let the tweenies have their fun and don't join in the cynicism game. They'll learn soon enough that Justinfever is not cool and let him drop from their oh-so-much-more-mature fingers.

Maybe all Justin's middle-aged detractors have horrible memories of losing the admiration of their girlfriends to the then-scrummy Davy Jones or David Cassidy. Maybe Leif Garrett ruined their teenaged love life.

I think I might be on to something. Such apparently groundless but widespread vitriol for a talented and successful child does smack of payback. Maybe Justin is paying the price for a million bruised and unreconciled male egos.

Anyway, God help poor Justin as he tries to sort out his self-esteem while navigating the torrid oceans of adolescence and young adulthood with a level of media scrutiny that would make most adults crack. Perhaps Bindi Irwin could share some tips for coping with a spiteful and envious world.

where to start.....?

I am 45 and enjoying my first forays into the world of academia. After 20 years in a miserable marriage and  seven beautiful children, I'm finally taking some time to pursue my own interests. The kids and I are living in a nice little rented house while we wait for the long divorce settlement process to conclude. When it does, I hope we will be able to purchase a small house and get on with growing and having fabulous lives.

I'm studying for a BA in Liberal Studies through Griffith University/Open Universities Australia. I'm undertaking my 3rd and 4th units at present. So far, it's been a hoot. Right now I'm studying CMM17 - An Introduction to Screen Analysis and CMM18 - News and Politics. The cinema subject is a nice, wanky Arts subject - heaps of fun and a little bit of learning. It's the News and Politics subject that's started me thinking - and prompted me to begin another blog.

In the course of pursuing this unit, I've been following news and political issues more closely than I have previously. I've often been confused by the world of politics and have struggled to find my place in any particular camp. With modules on News Reporting, Media Ownership and Australian Politics, I thought this unit would be a good way for me to get better acquainted with how things work in Australia.

I should disclose at this point that I am also a recent escapee from patriarchal Christian fundamentalism - a subject on which I blog elsewhere. I realise that a disclosure like that, should anyone ever take the trouble to read this blog, is likely to allow folk to feel justified in pigeon-holing me with the fundies - or Folk Dumb Enough to Give the Fundies the Time of Day". So I'd like to say that, leaving Fundamentalism was brought about in part by an increasing discomfort with the views of the public voice of Christian fundamentalism - politically and socially.

So I began a journey, with a determination to leave no stone unturned, no cow unkicked. I've determined to approach my new life with an open mind. Years of intellectual stricture has left me with a strong commitment to decide for myself what I think, no matter how voluable or aggressive proponents of any particular view happen to be. I want to record here my journeys as I walk out into the world of ideas, do my own thinking, and little by little form my own opinions.

I am going to attempt to be honest and true to myself, to report the world of my mind frankly, knowing that what I write now will no doubt embarrass me in the not-too-distant future. I will attempt to ask my own questions unintimidated by the fact that those who's views are more settled than mine seek to dissuade earnest questioning by shouting down opposing positions.

So...chin jutted out and thirsty for knowledge, I venture forward.