Palin’s Kid: A Doe in the High Beams

Two New York reporters referred to Bristol Palin as doe-eyed  — a somewhat odd choice of words given her mother’s heralded talent for gutting doe-eyed creatures.  Or perhaps the metaphor is weirdly accurate.  Sarah Palin’s ideologies and aspirations have caught her teenage daughter in the public spot lights and gun sights —where she is destined to become a trophy to Palin’s failed abstinence-only education policies. 

 

I can sympathize.  Let me tell you.  Sarah Palin self-describes as a “nondenominational” Christian.  That’s home turf for me.

 

As a nondenomonational teen, the only information I got about reproduction was a book about hamsters, Susie’s Babies.  There were eggs and sperm involved, but to this day I couldn’t tell you how hampster sex works.  I can tell you that Susie didn’t make any decisions whatsoever—about whether she wanted that little hamster “pellie” (as we called it) in her little hamster place, or whether she wanted babies sucking on her little hamster nippies afterwards.  The before-conception part and the after-delivery part just weren’t that important. 

 

Sound familiar? 

 

Unlike Palin’s daughter, I wasn’t the offspring of a beauty queen, and I was a nerd, so the abstinence/ignorance approach worked for a while.  I finally got around to having sex during my junior year away from Wheaton College (of Billy Graham fame) – because my virginity had become something of an embarrassment.  Even then, my ignorance was as intact as my hymen.  I was utterly surprised to see the mess we created.  (What did that poor boy tell his parents about their upholstery?)  Two years later, when I finally settled into a rather normal sexual relationship, I was secretly convinced that I myself was not normal.  Why?  Because when I had sex, wet stuff came out afterwards.  Nobody in books ever has that happen.  

 

What did Bristol know the first time?  I wonder. 

 

The trinity of fundamentalism in church, denial at home, and Falwellian education policies leave kids like Bristol to rely on willpower and prayer for contraception.     If either worked reliably, the human race would be extinct.  Instead, the call of the wild is so powerful that people have sex in places and at times where they could be killed for it–and are!–because the virginity code also appears to have its roots in biology.

 

Biologists explain our obsession with virginity as the need of males to invest their efforts in rearing their own genetic offspring.  But in day to day life, the elevation of virginity is far from rational.  Female virginity has magical curative powers in some places, magical erotic powers in others.  Among Christian fundamentalists, it is sacred.  Kids deal with the battle between their biological and religious imperatives by pretending that nothing’s happening.  A major problem with pills and condoms, besides inconvenience and cost is that contraception messes up the pretense.  If you go on the pill or buy condoms, then what might have been a forgivable sin of passion becomes premeditated sex.  Ooh. 

  

Palin has said that she is proud of her daughter’s choice to continue her pregnancy.  But  really, what choice did Bristol have at that point?  Ruin her mother’s career by having an abortion?  Violate one of her family’s defining values?  Do the thing that her God hates the most? 

 

Besides, where would she even go?  Imagine living in a town small enough that a girl’s pregnancy is an "open secret.”   What is the likelihood that a governor’s daughter can walk into a clinic unnoticed? How about just walking into a drug store and buying a pack of condoms without bumping into someone from church or school? The alternative to pregnancy: premeditated sin plus public exposure.  Bristol, like many teens under similar circumstances, chose to gamble.

 

I’m thankful that, for the time being, my own daughters have a broader array of options. 

 

Seattle

September 8, 2008

 

Posted in Christianity in the Public Square | 2 Comments

McCain’s Glass House: Hagee

At a news conference in Florida this week, John McCain couldn’t
resist the opportunity to bring up remarks by Jeremiah Wright, calling
them "beyond belief." This, despite the fact that Bill Moyers, in an
hour long interview
last Friday showed the world the broader context in which the remarks
were made. McCain, who seeks to position himself above dirty politics,
has instead positioned himself as a hypocrite.

You might think that, given the thin glass walls of McCain’s own
house, he might have chosen to stay silent out of sheer self interest.
It hasn’t been long since McCain powdered his nose and posed for the
camera with John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel CUFI.
Lest we forget, Hagee is an apocalypse-loving fundamentalist whose best
selling books glorify a river of blood running in the Middle East. He
and his followers raise money to "return" Jews to Israel so that they
can be killed all in one place and bring on the Rapture, Tribulation
and Second Coming. Come, Lord Jesus!

To make matters worse, Hagee’s despicable religious hunger for a
bloodbath has direct political implications. He has used CUFI to throw
his weight behind political organizing that will help to bring about
what he sees as a biblically prophesied war in Iran — also a part of
his god’s will for these End Times. Hagee tours the country rallying
the fundamentalist troops in support of a US-Iran war. All this, and
McCain dares to call Wright "beyond belief"?!

After McCain flew to Hagee’s side for an endorsement and press
conference, why didn’t we hear Hagee’s ugliest remarks over and over on
the air? Hagee calling the Catholic church a whore, Hagee saying that Hurricane Katrina was punishment
for gay pride plans, or Hagee, shouting halleluiahs at the altar of his
bloodthirsty vision? It’s all about who owns the media–and who clips
the bites.

If someone bothered to give us the wide angle picture — Obama with
Wright, Clinton praying with her dominionist cult The Family, and
McCain kissing up to Hagee — the composite story would be about what a
very bad idea it is to have our politicians buying and selling
religion.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Ben Stein: Frontman for Creationism’s Manufactroversy

Biblical creationism, repositioned as creation science
and most recently intelligent design has lost the contest of ideas on
all counts: the rules, the criteria and the judging. It doesn’t follow
the scientific method; it doesn’t allow us to explain, predict, and
control better; and the jury of relevant experts (aka biologists) keeps
returning the same verdict.

Now the creationists have taken a new approach that they hope will
help them achieve their goal of teaching religious beliefs in our
schools as science. That approach can be summed up in one simple word:
whining.

One week from today, the new movie, Expelled,
attempts to turn creationist complaints into mainstream media.
Featuring Ben Stein, one of the conservative right’s biggest whiners,
the film makes several plaintive appeals: There’s a conspiracy among
big government and big science, and it’s not fair! All we ask is for
our perspective to get equal time! (Read: we lost, so let’s split the
prize.) All we want is for teachers to "teach the controversy"! This is
all about academic freedom. Americans like freedom, right?

The whiners actually have spent millions of dollars on the movie,
and even more on the marketing of it. You have to give them credit: by
bundling Creationism with freedom, they have created a sophisticated
strategy. Of course, Americans like freedom! More importantly, both
democracy and scientific progress depend on intellectual freedom — the
freedom to ask questions and, unencumbered by ideology, to follow the
answers where they lead. After centuries of heresy trials and book
burnings, for biblical creationists to position themselves as the
champions of academic freedom is a brilliant Orwellian move.

University of Washington professor, Leah Ceccarelli has pointed out
that their "teach the controversy" strategy depends on a very specific
sleight of hand: blurring the difference between scientific controversy
and manufactured controversy or Manufactroversy.

You can say you first heard it here, well, if you haven’t heard it
already on MySpace or Facebook: Manufactroversy — a made up word for a
made up controversy. There’s even a new website, Manufactroversy.NewsLadder.net that aggregates articles and blog posts about this manufactroversy and some other pretty famous ones as well.

Scientific controversy exists only when the jury of relevant experts
is out on whether a new finding meets the standard of evidence. The
debate and evidence gathering still are in process. A manufactroversy
is when someone motivated by profit or ideology fosters confusion in
the public mind long after scientists have moved on to the next set of
questions. Think tobacco and lung cancer. Think Exxon and global
warming. Now think Ben Stein and evolution.

The fact is, there is no scientific controversy about evolution,
just like there is no scientific controversy about whether tobacco
causes lung cancer or whether human activity causes global warming.
However, in all three examples, someone powerful and well established
loses out when and if the scientific mountain of evidence becomes
common knowledge and widely accepted.

The tobacco industry in the 1960’s wasn’t anxious to part with its
profits just like the oil companies of the 1990’s had no desire to walk
away from theirs. So they manufactured controversies, paying scientists
to publish papers they knew would distort the issue.

In the case of creationism, the a vast preponderance of evidence,
conflicts with traditional mythos. What possible explanation but that
the scientists are colluding, corrupt, and biased. But, of course,
they’re not. The proponents of intelligent design can’t gain
credibility among hard scientists because their evidence is pathetic.
So what do they do? Follow in the footsteps of the tobacco and oil
companies and spend millions in an effort to create public doubt. They
plea for their side to be told, they imagine vast conspiracies and they
cry out for fair play, but the reality is much simpler.

The mountain of evidence supporting mainstream biological science is
overwhelming. The paltry evidence for "insurmountable gaps" and
"irreducible complexity" is actually shrinking. Evolution should be
taught as science and creationism, in its many guises, as religion,
including the rich pre-scientific stories about origins from many
cultures and traditions. So why not just ignore the whiners and hope
they will go away? Because they won’t until we force them to stop their
marketing of religious beliefs as science. We’re still fighting the
tobacco industry to this day. Oil companies still fund global warming
deniers.

Besides, how long has it been since the famous Scopes trial? How
long have creationists been talking about "Darwinism" as if no one but
Darwin had noticed the fossil record or the DNA code in the last 100
years? It does get tiresome, responding to their ever evolving
anti-evolutionary rhetoric. But we need to expose the bizarre
supernaturalist agenda behind all the sudden whining about academic
freedom. And somebody needs to gently remind Stein and his creationist
cronies that they haven’t been expelled from school, they flunked.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Giving Children Giving Skills

"The kids are proud!" my husband, Brian, commented, "I told them
where you were." We were vacationing in the Caribbean, and I had been
engaged in one of my quirky travel pastimes–buying children’s books
and dropping them at a local library. Brian looked pleased with
himself, our daughters hugged me, and I squirmed at having been outed.

I was raised on a Bible story in which Jesus is watching Pharisees
loudly drop coins into a tithe box at the temple door. Then a poor
widow comes along and discretely puts in a mite–a small coin of little
value. Jesus says that the widow has given more than any of them,
because she gave what little she had while they gave out of their
surplus. He also says that the Pharisees will get no reward in heaven;
their reward is the attention that they have sought and received. I’m
no longer worried about gaining or losing rewards in heaven. But the
sense has stuck that public eyes somehow diminish a gift, even if those
"public eyes" belong to two small girls.

For several reasons,
parents who were raised on similar stories need to push past the
discomfort of giving in front of their kids. New research
from the University of British Columbia reports that giving makes
people happier. In fact, how we spend our money, whether we use it to
help others has more effect on happiness than the total in the bank.
Other kinds of giving matter, too: time, for example, or knowledge. The
important thing is that children learn giving skills.

One time, I sat in my psychology office with a high schooler who had
just returned from a Habitat for Humanity trip in Peru. He poured out
an exuberant mix of images and ideas. "Where did you get this from?!" I
asked him, surprised by his intensity. "How did this stuff come to be a
part of who you are?" "From my mother," he answered immediately

I realized there was a part of his family experience that I didn’t
know. He was in my office because his parents had gone through a
difficult divorce and each family member was, in his or her own way,
struggling. We had been focused on declining grades, behavior problems
and conflicts. Pain makes us self absorbed, and he and his sister and
parents hadn’t been very focused on the well-being of the world in the
months since they had first come in to see me. It was all they could do
to muddle their way through the emotional upheaval.

"From your mother," I repeated. "How so?" "Oh," he responded, "She
used to take us to serve dinners for homeless people, and she raised
money for the animal shelter, and we were involved in our neighborhood
clean-up. . . " By the time he finished describing the many ways that
his mother had involved him in her service and giving, I had learned an
important lesson. Giving was second nature for him, like brushing his
teeth. It was part of his normal equilibrium. As soon as he began
emerging from the divorce process, it was there waiting, pulling him
back into a healthier, happier part of himself.

If we want our children to make their beds, we show them how it’s
done, we coach them through it, and we nudge them along. If we want
them to be readers, we read to them; we tell them it is important; we
read together so that reading becomes part of our bond. If we want them
to be kind to animals, we teach them how to pick up a cat and we remind
them what it feels like for an unfed pet to be hungry. We talk to
animals in peculiar ways, pet them, and invite the children to join us.
In all of these we model, explain, and encourage the desired habits and
then provide opportunities for supervised practice. But if we want them
to be civic minded or charitable, we expect them to pick it up by
osmosis.

Let me tell you what happened as a result of my husband exposing my
library adventure. Not long afterward, back home, our then six-year-old
picked up a book about manatees. She has always been fascinated with
marine mammals. In fact, at one point her stated goal in life was to
become an Orca whale. This time, she came down stairs crying, saying,
"Mommy, I want to send money to the manatees. I don’t want them to be
extinct."

She painstakingly dictated a letter to her aunt in Florida, asking
about how to help manatees. She drew pictures of manatees being hit by
boats, with a big circle and slash around them. And she set about
raising money by pulling weeds, picking up messes, and making a one-box
garage sale in which she sold–this is the bonus part–her only Barbie.

When she was still at it two months later, I helped her to sell
drinks and brownies at a local parade. By then she had involved our
next door neighbor girl and her little sister. A friend of ours dropped
by, and as he was leaving, he drew five dollars out of his pocket.
"This is for Brynnie’s manatee fund," he said. "Our boys pulled weeds
in our back yard because they wanted to contribute."

Now, I’ve never really focused before on helping manatees, but I’ll
confess, I love it. I get that in-love-with-my-kid feeling whenever I
think of her quest. "She’s becoming a regular mooch," my husband said
when he came home from work to find an elaborately decorated ‘Change
for Manatees’ box on top of our drier. "No," I reminded him. "It’s not
mooching, it’s fundraising." My husband hates begging favors as much as
I hate the public eye. But if we both have to squirm a bit so that the
girls can grow their helping instinct into a giving habit, so be it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

When Leaving Jesus Means Losing Your Family..

Think not that I
am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother
in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

-Jesus, Matthew 10:34-36

When my Gen Y friend Michael
confessed publicly that he couldn’t believe any longer, it cost him a
full ride scholarship and all of his friends but three. But that wasn’t
the worst of it. Michael had to make a choice: He could stay in his
parents’ home only if he refrained from "spiritual pornography,"
meaning any media that were critical of faith. He could stay there only
if he kept his doubts muted and invisible. Michael said he couldn’t do
that and moved out. His mother said it would have been better had he
died. His father banned Michael from seeing beloved younger siblings
without supervision. (Apparently spiritual pornography can lead to
spiritual pedophilia?) Loneliness and despair took him to the brink of
suicide.

Michael is warm, funny,
and fiercely smart. Today he is back in school at a secular university,
going it alone, working his way toward becoming a brain scientist. But
the choices he was forced to face and the rejection he experienced are
matched in our society only for kids who confess that they are gay.

According to recent Pew data, sixteen percent of Americans say that
they don’t have a religious affiliation. Other surveys would suggest
that most of these still believe in some kind of god, and many probably
still identify in some way with Christian teachings. But the fact is, a
sizeable number of us no longer ascribe to the faith(s) of our fathers.
And for those whose fathers serve a jealous god, the price can be high.

From testimonials at places like exChristian.net; exMormon.org; Faithfreedom.org
(leaving Islam) we know that Michael’s despair and desperation were not
unique. Many who lose religion muddle along in silent shame — wanting
to believe, praying desperately for doubts to be removed, blaming
themselves and fending off images of eternal torture before finally
giving up the fight. Granted, some lucky few simply flip a bit, but
others find themselves dragged reluctantly into an internal conflict
takes years.

Most religions implant psychological safeguards against apostasy,
little emotional bombs of fear, guilt, shame and self-loathing that get
triggered by the mere act of questioning. In religious orthodoxy, doubt
is the domain of fools. It is the consequence of having hardened your
heart like Pharaoh or resenting God’s power like Lucifer. Oh ye of
little faith!

Now add to loss and self-loathing a crush of rejection by people who
have loved you "unconditionally": friends, cousins, siblings, parents,
or even a spouse. When I was a suicidal nineteen-year-old (still a
believer), a woman I had looked up to for years, apologized for having
counseled me as a Christian when in hindsight I clearly was not. But
even now, despite my public apostasy, my family has never cut me off,
nor I them. We walk a loving, if uncomfortable line with each other.
Our compatibility depends on things not said as much as it depends on
conversation, but the common ground is also real.

Not everyone is so lucky. Some families cannot get past revulsion
and sense of betrayal they feel toward a member who has literally
broken faith. Manifest examples of kindness, integrity, warmth, or
generosity get reinterpreted. They were never real — or the person has
changed utterly.

Some former believers, fragile in either their disbelief or their
self-worth, can’t stand to be in the relentless presence of even
unspoken disapproval. Others try to reach out to family members and get
turned away with harsh words or silent shunning. Still others face a
barrage of re-conversion efforts at any family gathering.

A divorce can get initiated by either side. Either way, it is the
renegade who is most likely to end up alone and symptomatic. Think
about it: for a person who has already lost a god and consequently a
core part of the self, to sever ties with family is an act of
desperation or sheer self preservation.

Returning to my earlier comparison with gay kids coming out — we
all know what the worst case scenarios look like. In major cities
across the country, outreach programs offer a helping hand to homeless
and often self-destructive gay teens, kids who have been given the boot
by parents who think they might as well be dead. But who is offering
support to kids or adults who lose their religion?

Even among my professional peers, psychologists, far too few
understand the depth of harm that can be done to the psyche by
fundamentalist religion — religion that subsumes the individual self
to a cult self. The irony is that few mental health professionals are
sympathetic to the claims of moral dogma. The practicing therapist is
exposed daily to life’s caprice: biochemical malfunctions,
developmental vagaries, and rotten life circumstances. In contrast to a
religious perspective, psychology seeks to understand material and
historical roots of symptoms rather than making moral judgments. So the
problem is not that the professional world view aligns with a dogmatic
world view. It is just that, in the absence of dramatic evidence to the
contrary, we are all taught to think of religion as harmless.

It’s time to give up the illusion.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment