The crowd waits for Santorum

A family that was probably homeschooled came in at the same time as I did — a troop of about seven kids and their mother, all the girls wearing ankle length skirts with hair that went past their shoulders, the oldest boy in a navy blue suit. They were carrying flags, took pictures in front of the campaign bus, and bore signs that read “Too young to vote, old enough to care” and “I’m voting for Bella’s dad.”

A middle-aged man waiting in line behind me observed to his friend that this event had drawn a larger crowd than a Mike Huckabee rally he’d attended in 2008. A woman of about 60 in front of me was explaining to her neighbor why she had not been a John McCain supporter in that primary: “He wanted to impress us because he was willing to reach across the aisle. Well, I don’t want someone who will reach across the aisle. We’ve been doing that, and look where it’s gotten us.”

The sections we were directed to made up about a third of the arena’s 11,000-person capacity. These seats quickly filled up, so they had to open a full half of the venue. Media estimates put the Thursday afternoon crowd at more than 4,000.

While waiting in the stands, I continued to hear revealing snippets of conversation. A man told the woman next to him that “20% of this nation are on some kind of welfare,” and she responded that she “hadn’t heard that exact figure, but it doesn’t surprise me.” Another woman explained that she was not a Ron Paul fan because ”he doesn’t support Israel. And that’s a biggie.” An album of instrumental bluegrass covers of worship songs played over the sound system, which was tolerable. Unfortunately, someone switched it to smooth jazz.

Jeremy Burton, ORU’s Director of Public Relations announced that the event was a few minutes from starting and that the opinions of Santorum were not necessarily those of the university. A potential tragedy interrupted, though. Very soon after his first announcement, he returned to ask any physicians in the house to head to the audio booth. That shut the audience up. The situation was pretty serious. A man walked down the aisle nearest to me to shout “People of God, pray for this man. They’re doing chest compressions, and he’s not responding.” Burton returned to the microphone to announce that paramedics were removing the man, and to repeat the call for prayer. “At Oral Roberts University,” he informed us, “that’s important.”

After several tense minutes, ORU President Mark Rutland stepped up to the lectern but offered no new information. He said that he would lead us in prayer, but instructed us to “pray in your own way, in your own faith.” Men like him never seem to consider that there those who prefer not to pray at all. The vast majority of the crowd bowed their heads, and he prayed like someone used to doing this publicly. He concluded with “in Jesus’ name, amen.”

When the event finally started, we did not receive any meaningful information about the man’s condition. The best I could find later was a reference on a local news site to a “man in the crowd with a health condition” who was treated. I can only hope that the lack of concern in the media (most accounts don’t mention the incident at all) reflects a lack of serious result.

Santorum Prays Before His Speech

Kara Evans, the president of the ORU College Republicans, introduced Matt Pinnell, the chairman of the Oklahoma Republican Party and an ORU alumnus. He declared that his goal, and that of the 49 other state chairman, was to make Barack Obama a one-term president. This was met with uproarious applause, the first of the day. He said that it was his idea to bring Santorum to ORU, “the most renowned Christian university in the nation.” He added that if “the New York Times, or anyone else has a problem with that, they can email me at Matt@IDon’tGiveARip.com.” This was met with laughter and further applause. I expect that he will run for office in the not too distant future.

He then re-introduced Rutland, who also said nice things about the “world-renowned” ORU, quoted Will Rogers, and finally introduced the man himself. After the tense wait, I was glad he kept it short.

Santorum stepped onto the court with his two oldest children and was met with a standing ovation. He assured everyone that he had participated in the “very appropriate” prayer and expressed his best wishes.

He joked about his seven children and how he was doing his part to fix the “demographic problem” associated with social security and medical care. He also spoke about his youngest daughter, Bella, who had a “scary health time” recently. He mentioned she had a “miraculous recovery,” that Tulsa was his last stop before returning home to see her. “Tuesday was a good night,” he said, referring to his victory speech in St, Charles, MO after winning the non-binding primary in that state along with the Minnesota caucus. “But wow, this is amazing,” he said said of the Tulsa crowd.

I had wondered if the advertised “town hall” format had been abandoned, as I saw no microphones available, and Santorum settled the question. He explained that he would only be taking queries from students, specifically those on the stage behind the lectern, not the audience. He described this as “Socratic.”

He launched into the meat of his address by declaring the 2012 election to be the most important of any American’s life “no matter how old” they are and enumerating all the things it was about. This was when the alarms started to go off in my head.

Yes, this is an election about a president who is allowing things to occur in the world, almost apathetically, to rally forces that have been out there over the last few decades, that want to do harm to America. And we have the audacity of calling it an ‘Arab Spring,’ and what we see now is that the Arab Spring is an icy, cold winter of radical Islamists.

Santorum included Egypt as part of this “icy, cold winter.” The idea he seemed to express, and which the audience seemed to agree with, was that Egypt’s entire uprising consisted of “radical Islamists” who opposed “an ally of the United States and Israel.” He blamed Obama for “standing by.”

It is beyond dispute that the Islamist parties who now control Egypt’s parliament were (unfortunately) popularly elected, and Hosni Mubarak was a corrupt dictator. But these facts did not seem relevant to Santorum or his audience. It was odd to hear a candidate for president not even pay lip service to the idea that the United States promotes and spreads democracy around the world.

That's an awful lot of radical Muslims

Santorum went on to state unequivocally that Iran is “building a nuclear weapon.”

And the president reluctantly fights with Congress, just to do the minimum to slow them down. And then we see in Syria, the only reason the president of the United States withdraws our embassy from Syria, which he was that put it in place, to reward the thug Bashar Assad and his reign of terror over the people of Syria, we rewarded him by placing an embassy there. And the only reason we removed it, because they wouldn’t guarantee the safety of the embassy, not because we wanted to pull out as a sign of lack of support for this thug.

I could only gape at the speed with which he switched to calling Mubarak an “ally” and Bashar al-Assad a “thug.” The difference in the ruling styles of the two men is one of degree: Assad is more brutal, and putting an embassy in his country was indeed a mistake. The difference in kind between the Mubarak and Assad is not about how they rule their people, but in how they relate to the United States. Santorum did not pretend otherwise, and the audience did not care.

I was even more taken aback at how smoothly he transitioned from promoting amoral foreign policy realism to trumpeting Judeo-Christian values.

Ladies and gentlemen we have a president of the United States who on every single count, and I haven’t mentioned the one, his slow dissemination of the freedom of religion [applause], freedom of conscience [louder applause].

Standing up and talking about abortion as if having life and being pregnant was something that would deny people their dreams. This callousness toward life, and family, and faith — and even open hostility. This is the president of the United States today. This is a president who has a fundamentally different view of America than what made America the greatest country in the history of the world.

He asked us to imagine a less accountable second-term President Obama, immune to “political considerations.” Such a president would do enormous damage internationally, in Santorum’s view. He cited Israel as an example, “who stand and plead for our help.” He referred to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta “condemning” Israel and “inviting the rest of the world to do the same.” I did not know what he was talking about, but all around me, people emitted sighs of exasperation at the claim. My best guess now is that he was talking about reports that Panetta is concerned that Israel may strike Iran soon. The news was based on comments from anonymous officials, not any public statement, and I can find no hint of a condemnation.

From this, he glided right into our healthcare system, which he says Obama has “taken over.” The Affordable Care Act, to Santorum, is fundamentally about liberty.

If the government says they’re gonna give you a right, they can then tell you how to exercise that right [man in audience: "That's right."] You see, our founders believed… [slowly building applause] Our founders believed that rights don’t come from the government.

He then pulled out his pocket Constitution — “the operator’s manual of America.” He pointed out that most pocket Constitutions also print the Declaration of Independence — “the why of America.”

And in that Declaration of Independence is a phrase you folks here in Oklahoma, and I know at Oral Roberts, you know that phrase. And that is: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their [pauses, audience replies "Creator"] with certain unalienable Rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  And that is the essence of America.

The left, Santorum thinks, sees the Declaration as an “old, dead letter” and are trying to “ease [it] out.” It is “inconvenient” to liberals because it says “rights come from God instead of the government.”

It’s interesting. When it come to the issue of equality, they’re all for it. They use that term all the time. “Equality! Equality!” Where does equality come from? Do you find equality between men and women, in society, in other cultures in the world? No you do not. No you do not. You find it in Western civilization. You find it because we are a Judeo-Christian country.

Yes, Santorum argued with a straight face that Christianity was responsible for women’s rights.

None of us are equal, from the standpoint of, from a humanistic worldview. What makes us equal? It’s that we’re equal in the eyes of God. [Applause] We all have dignity and worth because of that.

I felt for a moment like he was telling me that, by not believing in a god, I had no rights. I know that this is not the logical conclusion of the statement, but it’s an easy reaction to have when surrounded by such a devout crowd. And the notion that rights come only from God does have a sense of exclusion to it.  Someone who holds this view would probably tell an atheist that she has the same rights as a religious person, but that she doesn’t recognize the source. This is another way of saying that secularists and humanists don’t understand the idea of American the way that Christians do.

Santorum presented this notion in stark terms.

That’s why it’s so hard to take what we have here, and transplant it in other countries. Because what we did here was unique, was different. The French tried to copy us in the French Revolution. Oh, they had their Constitution. But the watchwords of their revolution were three words. Liberty: good. Equality: good. And fraternity: problematic. Because fraternity means each other, brothers, right? Brotherhood, without fatherhood [applause]. Without a creator. And when that happens, and when that happens, then rights don’t from God, they come from each other. And, of course, once you have this radical document of freedom like our Constitution, and you give people the ability of self-government, and they have no rights they have to respect except the ones they give each other, then guess what? You get a guillotine [scattered applause].

He had no problem drawing a parallel between the godless French Revolution and 21st century liberal politics.

We have a president now who believes that government should be able to create rights and force you to exercise them in conformity with what they believe — not the unalienable rights you have. That’s why you see a church in America — I know it’s the Catholic Church, but it’s the Catholic Church first [woman near me: "That's right"]. It won’t be the last if they get away with it [applause].

America, Santorum explained, is the most tolerant country in the world. This is because of our excellence at practicing Judeo-Christian values. But somehow, an exception has been made for “behavior that is against the radical secular ideals of the left.” This is true “particularly if you’re a Christian.” He sees as a sign of this view that both Obama and Hillary Clinton have referred to the freedom of religion as “the freedom of worship.”

Now, I don’t know about you, but my religion goes beyond worship [applause]. What are you doing right here? What are doing right here, at Oral Roberts? You are practicing the freedoms that you’ve been given to educate people consistent with the values of your faith. That is a freedom, not of worship, but it is a religious a freedom, and an important religious freedom [applause].

From this, he transitioned comfortably to complaining about “government getting bigger and bigger,” which leads to “immoral debt.” He promised to “liberate the business community” with “lower taxes and less regulation,” and the audience showed strong approval. Free market capitalism is somehow a part of the package to Christian conservatives. He then narrowed the economic talk to energy issues, which are important to Oklahoma voters.

If we really want to get the business community going, one surefire way is to drive up energy production and lower the cost of energy in this country [standing ovation.] I knew that would get a good number here in Tulsa.

After drawing drawing parallels between the history of energy production in Pennsylvania and Oklahoma, he made clear what kind of “energy production” he was talking about.

Thanks to the great technology developed here of hydrofracking [man in audience whistles], we have seen the gas industry explode, and as a result, the cost of gas going down [sustained applause].

We have a huge economic advantage, and what are we doing with it? Trying to eliminate that advantage. The president of the United States is now going out and saying, “Oh, we’ve got to be conservative about this new technology, hydrofracking.” New technology? Last I saw there were about 800,000 wells drilled in this country using this technology [applause and several shouts of "Yeah"].

But since the environmentalists have now been outed with the politicization of the science of this “man-made global warming” schtick [loud applause, partial standing ovation]… They’ve gotta find a new fundraising tool.

Santorum used religious language even to distinguish himself from environmentalists.

They don’t believe that creation is here to serve man, they believe man is here to serve creation. And so as a result, we have a president of the United States who sides with them on everything.

When he said that environmentalists had been “outed,” he may have been referring to a 2009 controversy that was nicknamed “climategate”: the hacking of e-mails among four researchers who worked for the Climate Research Institute at the University of East Anglia. The American Meteorological Society responded to those who suggested that the content of the e-mails revealed a widespread conspiracy among climate scientists.

AMS Headquarters has received several inquiries asking if the material made public following the hacking of e-mails and other files from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has any impact on the AMS Statement on Climate Change, which was approved by the AMS Council in 2007 and represents the official position of the Society.

The AMS Statement on Climate Change [which states that current warming trends are anthropogenic] continues to represent the position of the AMS.  It was developed following a rigorous procedure that included drafting and review by experts in the field, comments by the membership, and careful review by the AMS Council prior to approval as a statement of the Society.  The statement is based on a robust body of research reported in the peer-reviewed literature.

“Skeptics” like Santorum’s former colleague, Sen. Jim Inhoffe (R-OK), nonetheless treated the e-mails as proof that no scientific consensus exists on climate change.

Before moving on to the obligatory bashing of his Republican rivals, Santorum attempted to establish himself as a man who believes that the problems in this country need to be solved from “the bottom up,” as opposed to someone like Obama who believes they should be solved from “the top down.” The audience rewarded him with a long standing ovation. Unlike me, they apparently knew exactly what he meant by that.

As proof of the extent to which he had won them over, the crowd laughed and cheered at his banal jokes about Mitt Romney‘s healthcare plan and Newt Gingrich‘s ad with Nancy Pelosi. He argued that since he is a man of deep and consistent conviction, he would “create a clear contrast Barack Obama.”

At that point, he moved on to the questions by pre-approved ORU students. The first was from Jonathan Townsend, the president of the College Democrats. Santorum joked to him that leading the College Democrats at ORU must feel like being the chairman of the College Republicans at Penn State, as he was in the early 80s. Townsend asked him to reconcile his opposition to the Affordable Care Act with his Catholic faith.

Here’s the way I approach things as a public official. I believe that you have an obligation to approach every issue in public life from the standpoint, as I do, from the standpoint of both faith and reason. My conscience was formed as a result of my life experience, was primarily through faith, and through the moral values that I was taught, of the teachings within the Bible and the church. And so, yes, I bring that to the table. That’s who I am. When I look at what’s right and wrong, they’re right out of what the Bible teaches are right and wrong [applause]. But, I have an obligation, not just to look at things that way, but also to bring reason.

I always say that if your faith is true and your reason is right, you’ll end up at the same place. Why? Well because God created us, created the universe, created reason. And, of course, why would God create something where your faith would bring you one place and your reason would bring you another if your faith is true? Right? [Scattered applause.]

I also believe as a public official that you have a right to speak to people of faith and no faith. You have to present a reason why you want to advance a certain public policy. Not just because, “that’s what my faith teaches me and that’s why I believe it.” That’s fine, but from the standpoint of public policy, it’s insufficient, because you need to appeal to people who may not share your faith.

And so, that’s why I look at the Affordable Care Act, and say, both from the standpoint of faith — do I believe that people have the right to purchase healthcare? Yes. Do I believe it is right that the government should impose and control? No. So it’s one thing to say that people should have the opportunity, should have access to care. It’s another to say that the government should be the implementer of that [applause]. And reason tells me that government is the least effective tool to make that the best possible care [standing ovation].

The next questioner, who introduced himself only as Micah, asked him to explain the difference between his foreign policy views and Ron Paul’s, which provoked knowing laughter among the crowd. I hope he did not mean this as challenging question — because if so, he failed. Santorum did not mention Paul while bashing Romney and Gingrich — probably because Paul is consistent on fiscal issues. And there are few supporters of Paul who could be swayed to Santorum’s side. But Micah gave Santorum and opportunity to avoid the appearance of ignoring an opponent, while drawing a real distinction between himself and the congressman.

The briefest way is, I believe in peace through strength, he believes… [Applause.] Well, maybe I’ll just say he doesn’t.

I believe that America is a source of stability in the world. The greatest benefactor of that is the United States and us. If we, in fact, do as Congressman Paul has suggested, which is to isolate ourselves, to withdraw from the world- I think we’ve seen that there are forces in the world who would replace us, who would not have our best interests in mind [applause.]

…

People have asked me, “would you vote for Congressman Paul, given his national security positions?” The answer is yes, because I believe after this election, if Barack Obama is re-elected, his foreign policy would be a Ron Paul foreign policy. I think he would become much more radical in his cuts to the military and bringing people home, and disengaging from the world and allowing the world to go to seed. And let me assure you — it will go to seed. And the virulence, that will be rampant, like a bacteria that keeps growing, will end up on our door [applause]. And we will not be able to have the ability to stop it.

He had, by this point, made many untrue statements. But his claim that a second term President Obama would have the same foreign policy as a first term President Paul was his most dishonest. He simply can not believe that to be the truth.

Ron Paul said that the assassination of Osama bin Laden was “absolutely unnecessary,” and that he would not have ordered it; that the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki was an “impeachable offense;” that the drone campaign in Pakistan, which Obama expanded after taking office, “makes more enemies” (and I agree with him on that one). Santorum employed a transparent scare tactic by claiming Obama, due to a lack of political accountability as a second term president, would suddenly change his entire approach to national security.

The next questioner was Luke, an international relations major, and the president of the Model UN Club. His was the best question of the night by far.

Luke: It says on your website that you want to re-brand “The War on Terror” to be “The War on Radical Islam” [applause.] Do you see radical Islam as the prime example of Islam at large? And, if you were the commander-in-chief, how would your War on Terror, or War on Radical Islam change from the current administration?

Santorum: Thank you. Great question. The reason I saw we have to re-brand the war, is because we need to be accurate as to who we’re fighting [applause.] Are we fighting all terrorists? And the answer to that is clearly no. There are terrorists in other parts of the world that we are not engaged in, and have no interest from national security point of view from engaging in.

The other issue is, is this a war on terrorism? Well what is terrorism? Terrorism is a military tactic. Can you be at war against a military tactic? … You go to war against what we’ve always gone to war against. You go to war against a virulent ideology that seeks to harm and destroy America [applause].

His point that you don’t fight a tactic is well-put, but I was disturbed the casual assumption that we are in an ongoing war that won’t end until this “virulent ideology” is eradicated. Judging by their reaction, the crowd made it along with him. If we’re in the business of re-branding, why not think of the struggle with “radical Islam” as an ongoing intelligence operation?

It’s especially unsettling when one considers the breadth of his definition of “radical Islam,” as revealed in his earlier comments about Egypt. Considering those statements, it’s hard to know what to make of his clarification of what America’s relationship with Islam should be.

Does that mean we’re at war with Islam? Of course not. But we’re at war with an element of Islam, that, frankly is at war Islam, and with most Muslims [applause]. The people who are going to be most disadvantaged, who are going to be most affected, as we see in Iran — most Iranians are not radical Islamists. In fact, most Iranians love America. And they’ve loved America for a long time. Why? Because we had the courage to go out and call their theocracy what it was: evil, and a corruption, and that we were on their side. Yet they are being oppressed everyday by these radicals. No, we’re not at war with Islam. But we are at war with the radical elements and we need to say to the people of Islam, the Islamic people, that they need to join the fight [applause] against the radical elements. And we are ready to help you in that regard.

This is a nice idea, of course, but I’m not sure how he’s capable of communicating his support and good intentions to “the people of Islam” if he supports people rulers like Hosni Mubarak. His real message seems to be: “we support you as long as you don’t oppose our allies.”

The fourth and final questioner, a young woman who did not introduce herself, asked him how he would respond in a general election to attacks on his abortion and homosexuality stances.

Well, it’s very interesting, because the other candidates in this race have the same position I have on these issues, at least that’s what they say. Right now, they have the same position I have on these issues. And so, whoever the Republican candidate is, we have these radical positions that marriage should be between a man and a woman [applause]. How radical is that?

He brought up the recent decision by the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down California’s 2008 Proposition 8, which added a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in the state. He claimed that the court ruled that “there was no rational basis for anyone to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.” What they actually ruled was that Prop 8 specifically violates the 14^th Amendment, in that it does not conform to the standard that there be “a legitimate reason for a passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.” The decision does not even establish the right of same-sex couples to marry. Opponents of marriage equality are right to worry that the trend is favoring the rights of gay and lesbian couples, but it’s a bit hysterical to treat each ruling that is unfavorable to them as a rebuke on their mental faculties.

Santorum that any Republican candidate will be attacked for his views on abortion and homosexuality, but that his strong convictions and willingness to talk about the issues set him apart. Americans, he said to loud applause, “want to believe that the president believes what he believes.”

In his closing remarks, after talking about the risks taken by the Founding Fathers and the American military, challenged the crowd to put their “honor on the line.”

You are stewards of a great inheritance. You have been honored by your ancestors, the people from Tulsa, the people from Oklahoma. The people from this country have given you the honor of being an American [applause]. And it is your obligation to be great stewards, to pass on to the next generation an America that is at least as great, as free, as prosperous and safe as the country you inherited. That’s what this is about, and I hope you take that challenge and do your duty. Thank you and God bless.

Read: don’t disrespect your ancestors and the troops casting a cynical vote for Romney or Gingrich. The final standing ovation was long and enthusiastic, and the chant “We want Rick” gained some momentum.

As I made my way out of the arena, I looked around and saw a lot of smiling, enthused people. I don’t know if they will all vote for Santorum on March 6^th, but I do know that they really liked what they heard.

…

I realize now that I’ve been exposed to Rick Santorum’s ideas almost exclusively through other liberals. The first I heard of him was when I read about Dan Savage‘s notorious Google-bomb of his surname. After he lost his Senate re-election campaign in 2006, I occasionally saw a left-leaning blogger complain about something he wrote on Townhall.com or said on Fox News. Even since his presidential campaign launched him back into the spotlight, I came across his statements largely through The Daily Show, ThinkProgress, and liberals on Twitter.

The experience of hearing his ideas unmediated, delivered to a sympathetic audience, was revelatory. The people I sat with on Thursday were not freaks. They were not on the fringes of society. Santorum’s crowd is indistinguishable from the people I see and interact with every day as they politely go about their business in the city of Tulsa.

I suppose I always knew that, but to see it in practice was terrifying.

It was started by freshman Ian Stewart after a winter break spent engrossed in The God Delusion. He and two other freshmen started the group because “[they] felt inspired to counter campus faith-based groups by uniting [their] fellow non-believers.”

Look at those charming faces.

They’ve spent seven hours over the last week getting students to help create their group on campus:

“As someone who is both gay and an atheist, I feel more persecuted as an atheist than as a gay man, and that’s saying something,” said [Stewart] the performing arts major. “I wanted to create a group for not just atheists, but agnostics and humanists, so that they could feel comfortable.”

I have heard that a lot from non-theists I’ve met over the years. It’s not always easy to come out — and if you’re a double threat (heh), then it can be even harder. That why it’s great that the number of SSA affiliates has been rising so rapidly. It’s easier than ever to come out as an atheist now, but there’s still some areas where it can be scary. Stewart says he wants to help remove the stigma attached to being an atheist and plans on getting his group involved with volunteer work.

Kate Caldwell, the president of the Emerson Christian Society, says she was surprised to hear about the formation of the group, possibly due to Emerson’s largely secular student body.

“There are the Christian, Catholic, and Jewish organizations on campus, and I just never had thought that people with agnostic or atheist views would want a place to meet and talk about that,” said the writing, literature, and publishing major. “If they do, I think that’s totally cool.”

Sounds like an awesome, totally reasonable response! Glad to hear that there are some open minded and rational people at Emerson. Not everyone understands why the group is a welcome addition to the school’s groups, but member Sara Detrick had a response to that:

“I was talking to a girl on my floor who is a part of a Christian group here, and she said there were so many secular people there is no need for the group,” [member] Detrick said. “I think because there’s so many of us, we need to be connected so that we can get things done.”

I’m looking forward to see how this group does. I hope they flourish up there in Boston!

When I first told my friends I was dating an actual Christian, they were all uppity about it: “Well, you have to respect someone’s religious views.” But when I mentioned he was abstaining from bedroom business for devout reasons, all of a sudden he was a total weirdo in their eyes (I’m patting myself on the back right now for being so open-minded). At first, it was a refreshing — almost romantic! — change from the norm, which usually involves the guy trying to seal that deal as soon as possible. But slowly, a feeling of insecurity started creeping over me…

…

Here’s a sliver of the type of conversation we’ve had more than once:

“Jesus used to say…” (boyfriend says)
“Please don’t quote Jesus. You know it makes me uncomfortable.” (me, all squirmy)
“I wish you would open your mind a bit more. You would be such a powerful Christian woman…” (him, being sincere)
“You’ll never convert me! I wish you would read Dawkins!” (me, in near tears)
“Jesus’s love for me is real.” (him, unwavering)
“I wish you would read Hitchens!” (me, in near tears)
“Jesus sacrificed for us. All of us.” (him, unwavering)
“You love him more than me.” (me, in tears)
“I do. I can’t help it.” (him, pious)

…

But nonetheless, here I am, wondering, should I just be a little less picky and let this one slide? Or is religion going to be a deal-breaker for me? The older I get, the fewer deal-breakers I want to have, because it’s not like it gets any easier.

Leave. Leave now. Leave now and never look back. This will not end well.

It’s not that a relationship between a religious and non-religious can’t work. But when the other person’s god becomes a higher priority than you — when anything becomes a higher priority than you — things are bound to come to a halt before long.

I didn’t always feel that way. I used to believe it was possible to date a theist as long as we shared the same values. But as I’m getting older, the way my significant other views the world rates higher and higher on the Priority List. I almost feel dirty saying it because it seems like I’m bordering on intolerance, but while I can get along just fine with religious friends and colleagues, I would probably lose some respect for the person I’m in a relationship with if she told me she was going to church, or praying during difficult times, or reading the Bible as a source for inspiration. For some reason, that same thought doesn’t apply to the other people in my life — if they’re religious, I don’t necessary lose respect for them. It just doesn’t faze me at all. But if that mutual respect isn’t there in a relationship, can you really build from there? I don’t know if I could (though I know plenty of couples who make it work).

If you are dating someone religious and it’s very serious, how do you make it work?

Incidentally, Jesse Galef once wrote about a slightly different question on this site: “Could you date someone who could date someone who is religious?”

(Thanks to Joseph for the link!)

In case you can’t bear to watch that, here’s a rough transcript, courtesy of Hoyden About Town:

Pat Robertson: Atheists don’t believe in ANYTHING. I mean, a theo means “no God,” they have no Gods, so they don’t have anything, so they don’t believe in anything. But they can protest, somebody who believes in SOMETHING. I mean, isn’t this a strange thing, that we would allow somebody who doesn’t believe in anything to restrict the freedom of those who do? I mean, it makes no sense! Sooner or later we’re going to wake up, but I think maybe we are…but our hats are off to the forest service, this is just one minor little skirmish, but these atheists, they’re just enormously creative in figuring out things they can do that give us trouble. Kristi…

Kristi Watts [interrupting]: You know what I just thought of, Pat?

Pat Robertson: What’s that?

Kristi Watts: You know you’ve got different kinds of, well, let’s call them religions…there’s one called Wicca, and they’re all about the environment, right? So, their religion that believes in the environment, and they believe that trees are their god, why are these atheists not saying that we should cut down every tree? Because it’s offensive. [holds out hand towards PR} Do you know what I mean?

Pat Robertson: Yes...

Kristi Watts: It’s the same mentality!

Pat Robertson: Oh, absolutely.

Kristi Watts: Right?

Pat Robertson: Absolutely. OK.

Kristi Watts: [dramatic shrug] Just a thought.

Yes… Wiccans like trees… and Wiccans are a religion… so let’s CUT DOWN ALL THE TREES!

Never mind that Wiccans don’t actually “worship” trees… and they aren’t going against the Constitution and trying to codify their beliefs into the law, or denying women the right to have an abortion because of their beliefs, or preventing gay people in a loving relationship from getting married…

None of that matters to Watts, though. We’re atheists so, apparently, we must protest everything people of faith do without rhyme or reason. What’s stopping us, since we don’t believe in anything?

Jason Pitzl-Waters offers a calmer, more straight-forward response to Watts’ moronic statement:

Atheists aren’t gunning to chop down all the trees us Pagan tree-huggers hug because they predominantly believe in environmental and climate science, and know that cutting down “every tree” would destroy our ecosystem, and life on earth itself…

Pat Robertson actually looks uncomfortable in that clip as Watts begins talking but he doesn’t do anything about it. A responsible person would’ve told her she’s speaking nonsense and set the record straight. But Robertson has a major problem with noticing nonsense even when it’s staring him in the face, so it’s not surprising that he would just let it slide.

(Thanks to Anh for the link!)

Now, some of the extended interviews with prominent black atheists have been posted online. Check them out — not just because they’re black, but because it’s sincerely heartwarming to listen to people talk so openly and comfortably about leaving their childhood faith and becoming a freethinker despite the cultural and social difficulties.

They’re all compelling, but I think Mark Hatcher‘s really hit home since I also started an atheist group at college for similar reasons.

Leighann Lord:

…

Mark Hatcher:

…

Kimberly Veal:

…

Alix Jules

(via African Americans for Humanism)

Apparently, he just plain forgot that he was supposed to pick me up after a meeting he had had that night. He’d arrived home, and rather than a “hello,” he was greeted with a suspicious, “Where is our daughter…?” My mom says he turned eight shades of green, darted back to the van, and rushed to get me in a flurry of apologies.

Now, we sarcastically refer to this event as if it was the ultimate treachery, and in case my father ever has anything snarky to say to me, I’ll just point back to that fateful day as evidence to his “horrible” parenting. We laugh about it now, about his daughter-erasing brain fart, and my melodramatic response of seeking some sort of habitat for a night in the wilds of my small middle school.

At the time, though, I remember one thought in particular that kept circling my adolescent brain: “I’ll never do this when I have kids.”

How often have you all said similar things? Back then, it was a petulant response, extrapolating an honest, adult mistake to be a horrible symbol of my father’s lack of concern for me; but now, I find myself asking myself the same sort of questions, for very different reasons. Instead of slighting my parents for every piece of clothing they didn’t buy for me or event I wasn’t permitted to attend, I’m now starting to question what things I would do differently.

As a hypothetical parent, I would be in completely uncharted territory, as my own beliefs are radically different from my own parents’ faith-based approach. My parents were Christians, as were their parents, my friends and their parents were Christians…come to think of it, I don’t even personally know any atheist parents.

This does have a positive side effect, though: since there are no models to emulate within my immediate experience, the tough tussling with difficult concepts ultimately comes down to discussions with my husband, which is exactly where they ought to be. As I’ve discussed before, leaving the tough choices about parenting to someone outside of you and your family can have enormous repercussions. Religious institutions in particular often call for prescriptive parenting instead of descriptive; that a child will “become” such-and-such an individual if you follow such-and-such discipline program, as outlined by everyone’s favorite child psychologist — the preacher.

So what exactly would I do differently? What parts of my hypothetical parenting would deviate from my own experience being parented in a Christian household?

I have a shortlist, and I’m looking to add more:

1. No mandatory church attendance.

While this may sound like a “duh” statement to those raised outside of religious influence, the implications are much more subtle and much more fraught if grandma and grandpa are religious and readily accessible to the child.

My husband and I want to raise our hypothetical children to decide for themselves. After all, it isn’t their religion (or lack thereof) that I’d be raising — it’s a whole, complete child, equipped with a personality and wants and needs and opinions. Religion will not be kept hidden from them, nor will it be glossed over or minimized, but they will realistically need to know how it informs the beliefs of the greater majority of their family. Developing critical thinking skills will involve us 100% more as parents; fostering these skills would be significantly harder if they are exposed to indoctrination that teaches them that morality is tied to warming a chair once a week at a specific time.

2. No corporal punishment.

As I mentally began sorting through some of these ideas, I realized that my only arguments in favor of physical punishments were faith-based.

Given the track record of this particular discipline technique, the potential for abuse, and the vehement disagreement with the practice from professional communities, I simply don’t see any evidence to even consider the practice in the first place. Full stop.

3. Rewarding honest inquisitiveness.

One characteristic of the Christian religion — or many variants of it — is to discourage critical thinking by painting “doubt” as a negative (just like calling anger “bitterness,” and the useless trapdoor-of-a-phrase, “I’ll pray for you”). I can’t really remember how many sermons I’ve heard about “Doubting Thomas,” where the punchline of the story is almost universally omitted: he ultimately overcomes his doubt through… evidence and reason! For some reason, Thomas was skeptical of the idea that a friend of his was brutally tortured, died, and rose from the dead to walk among humans again, and asked for some simple evidence that would confirm his identity.

You there! With the valid, strong emotions! Why must you be so bitter all the time?

Curiously, in the account in John 20:24-29, Jesus does provide the evidence that Thomas requested, yet (in verse 29) goes on to suggest that request was somewhat petty:

“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen Me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

However, there are several layers to this case; according to the story, Jesus was able to confirm Thomas’ doubts with actual, physical evidence, which is never available to the person behind the pulpit, claiming to possess the key to unlock Truth. So, in terms of the story, I agree with Jesus: it is better to believe things that are true even if you haven’t personally witnessed it. Things like gravity, pulsars, and evolution can be established to be “true” even if you yourself can never “see” it with your own two eyes.

What I won’t be doing is teaching my children in the churchified version of the Doubting Thomas story, where the blame lies in his curiosity and his “need” for proof. Instead, I want my children to recognize what kind of evidence a given claim will need, and whether or not the evidence given meets those criteria.

4. Recognize autonomy by resisting the urge to “train” a child.

Ultimately, I will have to realize my limited power as a parent. Just like I can’t “make” students learn a concept in the classroom, I can’t “make” a child become something or another. I can encourage certain behaviors while discouraging others, but at the end of the day their identity does not belong to me.

With Christian parents, many people adopt the Driscollian view that their success as a parent lies in the transfer of their religious values to their children, and it’s a recipe for disappointment. By sheer numbers, I would guess that many readers of this blog come from religious backgrounds, and I would guess even further that some might have observed the negative ramifications of religious belief in their cognitive processes. With this kind of irrational desire placed as such a high priority, all other accomplishments — morality, responsibility, love, care, concern for the world around you — take a backseat to the idea that immortal soul of the child they love is in danger. It completely minimizes actual problems and accomplishments, and colors the relationship that parents can have with their teen and adult children. That’s not the kind of relationship that I envision for myself, nor do I understand why any parent would want that.

All your religion are belong to us.

It won’t be an easy journey, but no adventure in parenting ever is. I also don’t believe that my atheism or skepticism equips me to be a perfect parent, but I hope that the desire to think critically about the world around me and my contributions to it will spill over into a dynamic, organically evolving relationship with my hypothetical future children.

How about you? If you are already a parent, what did/do you do differently from faith based parenting approaches? If you’re simply speculating, like me, what are some things that you consider?

Von Lester Taylor - Utah Department of Corrections

After Von Lester Taylor pled guilty to murdering a mother and her daughter, a jury sentenced him to death.  Taylor now claims that one juror should have been disqualified due to his belief in “blood atonement” and that the entire jury selection process was invalid because evidence suggests the prosecution was deliberately excluding jurors who were not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The Supreme Court of Utah ultimately held Taylor should have raised these claims earlier in the appeals process and that, because Taylor provided no valid reason for his delay, it is now too late for the court to consider the claims.

Even though the decision focuses on procedure rather than on religion, the case poses some really interesting questions:

First, the blood atonement issue.  Blood atonement is generally understood as the belief that murder is so atrocious that it can only be forgiven if the murderer’s blood is shed.  In a murder trial such as Taylor’s, this seems problematic: Does this mean the juror would only feel comfortable sentencing a murderer to death, rather than some lesser punishment like life in prison?

In Taylor’s case, the answer happened to be no, as the Supreme Court of Utah held in an earlier appeal that the juror “believed the doctrine of blood atonement referred to the Christian belief that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world and not to the principle that anyone who kills must be killed,” and the juror believed “there may be circumstances in which a defendant who deliberately killed another person might not deserve the death penalty.”

But what if the answer had been yes?  What if the juror believed that the only acceptable punishment for murder was death?  Certainly it would not be fair for the defendant to be sentenced by this juror, as the juror’s sentence recommendation might always be death, regardless of the circumstances.

Which leads to another interesting question: Can attorneys reject jurors on the basis of their religion?  When selecting a jury for trial, attorneys are allowed to exclude potential jurors because, for example, there is good reason to believe the juror would not be able to be fair (that would be “for cause” exclusion).  Attorneys are also allowed a certain number of peremptory challenges, which they may use to exclude potential jurors that they simply don’t care for.  In Batson v. Kentucky (1986), however, the Supreme Court held “the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State’s case against a black defendant.”

Does this prohibition extend to religion?  Religion, like race, carries a lot of import in this country.  If attorneys can’t exclude jurors on the basis of their race, then must they also be neutral with respect to religion?  Taylor himself complains that the prosecutor unfairly excluded non-Mormons, even though Taylor wanted the blood atonement juror excluded on the basis of a religious belief.

When I first read this case, my gut reaction was that Taylor was right (if the facts were exactly as he claimed them to be): A juror who believes in blood atonement should be excluded, yet prosecutors should not be able to favor Mormons in the jury selection process.  But how is this legally defensible, as both involve discriminating on the basis of religion?

This question has not been answered by the United States Supreme Court, but a case out of the Tenth Circuit suggests a resolution.  In U.S. v. Prince (2011), the Tenth Circuit explained there is a difference between religious belief and religious affiliation.  A prosecutor may strike a potential juror on the basis of religious belief (like the belief in blood atonement), but may not strike a potential juror on the basis of religious affiliation (like not being Mormon).  The court explains a prosecutor “may undoubtedly strike a juror for being unwilling to sit in judgment of another human being, but he may not infer solely from a prospective juror’s race, gender, or religion that he will be unwilling to sit in judgment of another, and then offer that unwillingness as a permissible basis for a peremptory challenge.”

Here, the existing law lines up quite nicely with my visceral reaction to the facts of the case.  What was your visceral reaction to these facts?  If you were on trial, who would you want excluded from your jury, and why?

Dear Richard,

I have a complicated issue and I was hoping that you could offer some insight so I can make an informed decision. I am an “on-the-fence” atheist, but I don’t want to be atheist. I turned towards atheism several months ago, but before that I had some personal spiritual beliefs I’ve been believing for some time now. Ever since I began exploring atheism, I’ve become really depressed about letting go of my old beliefs. I didn’t follow any religion… I just had some beliefs of mine that were more of comfort beliefs than anything else, but they did make me feel better at times. After giving it some thought, I asked myself if I really needed to be atheist because I don’t really have any good reasons to become one. I am not fanatical about my personal spiritual beliefs, and I rarely share my feelings about them. If I became an atheist, it’d be just about the same. My main concern however is that I just feel awful since moving towards atheism. Is it okay for me to have my own, personal spiritual beliefs if they’re helping me in the end? Thanks.

—Benjamin

Dear Benjamin,

It’s okay for you to have whatever beliefs you have. There is neither a “need” for you to be an atheist, nor a “need” for you to be a theist or anything else. Follow whatever works for you and whatever is true for you. If your beliefs give you comfort and if they make sense for you, then keep them.

However, I think the conflict you’re having is that your beliefs give you comfort, but they no longer make sense for you.

Forgive me for analyzing you through your letter. I cannot know for certain without a careful back-and-forth interview with you, so I can only offer my initial impressions, which could be inaccurate.

As a former therapist, I must stop here to respond to your mention of “becoming really depressed.” Clinical depression, rather than sadness or grief can be very dangerous. If you think you are depressed, if you have feelings of hopelessness or thoughts of death, please talk to a doctor immediately. Your safety is paramount, beyond any other issue here. You deserve to be able to sort out your new views, your old beliefs, and to live a happy and satisfying life.

You haven’t detailed what your comforting spiritual beliefs are, but the ones I have most often heard described are those about an afterlife, those about something that gives a sense of order to what can seem like a chaotic universe, and those about something that will give guidance or protection in a daunting situation.

Whatever they may be, you sound like you don’t actually believe your beliefs; you’re just keeping them around as comforting thoughts. You talk about them as if they’re outside of you, and you’re looking at them in a detached way. You do not sound like you have a strong inner conviction that they’re correct and true. Comfort and reassurance are important and legitimate human needs, but the comfort and reassurance of a belief vanish when one realizes that it is not true. It becomes only a wished-for memory. Then those needs have to be fulfilled in new ways.

You say you’re an “on-the-fence” atheist, but I think your ambivalence is not between disbelieving and believing. I think it’s between disbelieving and wishing you still believed.

I think the fence that you’re sitting on is a difficult place of transition that many atheists reading your letter will recognize from their own experience. Very often there is a lag time between a person’s intellectual realization that they no longer believe in something, and their emotional acceptance that it is gone. People often experience this stage of conflict between their head and their heart as feelings of grief, regret, and loss. What you are describing sounds like this. The mourning period can last for weeks, months, or less often for years, but most people pass through it and emerge resolved and more comfortable on the far side.

I think the best way to progress through this process is to talk about it frequently with trusted friends who have been through it themselves. There’s nothing specific that I can point to in your letter, but I get a vague inkling that you are wrestling with this struggle all by yourself. If that is correct, I urge you to reach out and find people with similar views. You’ll immediately discover the relief that comes from knowing that you’re not the only one who thinks and feels whatever you do, and you’ll probably find very practical suggestions as well as encouragement and companionship. You’ll find that this is a good new source for the comfort and reassurance that the old beliefs used to give you.

There’s a chance that my analysis is not correct. If you are not going through the grief period, if whatever are your personal spiritual beliefs help you as you say they do, if they give you comfort and they make sense for you, then as I said at the beginning, keep them.

Do you “need” to be an atheist? No. You need only to be true to yourself. True to your mind, and true to your heart. Completely, thoroughly, courageously true.

Richard

You may send your questions for Richard to . Please keep your letters concise. They may be edited. There is a very large number of letters. I am sorry if I am unable to respond in a timely manner.

While men still outearn women, the gap is shrinking. When it comes to young adults, women are graduating from college in greater numbers, have higher GPAs and for the first time ever, are more likely to earn a PhD than a man is. Women are also getting married and becoming parents at younger ages, while men are still more likely to live with the 'rents. What is the cause of this growing divide?

On the flipside, William J. Bennett, CNN contributor, and author of The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood recently wrote that, “for the first time in history, women are better educated, more ambitious and arguably more successful than men.” The New York Times reported in 2010 that women account for more than half of college students and nearly half of the work force.

It should be a woo-hoo!-women moment. And it is. But it’s hard to be completely happy about the fact that while women are becoming more successful, men seem to be regressing.

Bennett writes:

Today, 18-to-34-year-old men spend more time playing video games a day than 12-to-17-year-old boys. While women are graduating college and finding good jobs, too many men are not going to work, not getting married and not raising families. Women are beginning to take the place of men in many ways.

Articles from Hanna Rosin (The End of Men), Kay S. Hymowitz (Where Have the Good Men Gone? and Fiona Roberts (America’s Lost Boys: Why ARE so many young men failing to grow up?) have also highlighted the plight of young men in America.

According to the Daily Mail article by Roberts, psychologists blame the man-baby trend on a range of factors, from boys becoming disillusioned at young ages about their roles in society to the rise of video games and the internet.

Research like the ones cited above might hit close to home, considering many atheists are young and male. Research from Ariela Keysar (2007) reports that one-third of American atheists are under 25 years old, and half are under age 30. About one-fourth of 25-year-old white men lived at home in 2007 — before the latest recession — compared with one-fifth in 2000 and less than one-eighth in 1970 according to the New York Times article cited earlier. However, research also tell us atheists tend to score high on measures of IQ, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy.

So what is the problem with men these days? Or is there even a problem?

Immature men get a "Hall Pass" from their wives in this 2011 film.

It’s not like there are a ton of great role models out there. Ashton Kutcher? Chris Brown? Ben Roethlisberger? Even the usually brilliant Richard Dawkins got some heat last year for mocking Rebecca Watson after she said she felt uncomfortable when a man propositioned her in an elevator.

Mark Driscoll, noted sexist and a founding pastor at Mars Hill Church, thinks more young men need the Bible to grow up.

Earlier this month, Driscoll wrote:

I’m a pastor, and I know this will seem crazy, but let’s put down the remote, set aside the porno, and see if maybe the Bible has any wisdom since what we are doing isn’t working.

In an older RELEVANT magazine interview, Driscoll said that men have entered an extended adolescence as “guys.”

It’s just extended adolescence, where 20s, 30s, sometimes even in his 40s, he doesn’t really want to get married, doesn’t really want to have kids, doesn’t really want to pursue a career. He has a lot of hobbies, got a lot of buddies, watches a lot of porn, gambles, has a lot of fun, maybe plays in some band or is in a guild of World of Warcraft, or something ridiculous like that… I think part of the problem is, as well, that the Church in large part has accommodated that.

Those guys tend not to go to church. If those guys do show up at church, it’s usually just to find a couple of gals to break the commandments with. And the Church doesn’t really know what to do with them, so the least likely person in America to go to church is a guy in his 20s who is single. Without knowing what to do with those guys, they commit crimes, they get women pregnant, they’re a drain on social services, they don’t raise their kids, they don’t contribute to church, they’re not getting ready to lead the next generation. I’d say it’s nothing short of a crisis, it’s a real problem.

According to an article on The Catholic News Agency’s website, “Nearly 40 percent of post-abortive women in one study reported that partners pressured them into having the abortions.” Emory University professor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese is quoted as saying “the most enthusiastic fans of abortion have been men — at least until they have children of their own.”

Christian blogger Ruthie Dean also writes that women have been damaged by dating immature guys who don’t want families — immature guys like the one she calls “Mr. I Don’t Believe in Organized Religion.” She wrote on a christanitytoday.com blog post last week:

…standards should not be created based on the worst examples but instead on what God deems right…. humans cannot change people. God is in the business of changing and redeeming men’s hearts.

I know someone who agrees with Driscoll and Dean. She told me she wishes the guy she is seeing (he is 23ish) would move out of his parents’ and go to church. She mentioned his atheism as if it was a problem that would keep him from maturing. I took offense to that.

OK, well, sure, there are some basic, positive concepts that could benefit anyone in the Bible.

But there’s a whole lot of scary stuff, too.

Should women be treated like property and killed if they don’t cry out for help while being raped? Should men be willing to give their wife sexually to a pharaoh as a bargaining chip like Abraham did? The Bible is a literary cornucopia of men behaving badly.

As a pre-teen in Bible school, I heard the story of David, Bethsheba and Uriah. When my Bible teacher read the verses where God described David as a man “after my own heart” (1 Sam. 13:14; Acts 13:22), it made me feel like if a murderer and pervert was the closest person out there to God’s heart then humanity had to be absolutely hopeless. The message I got was that something was wrong with each and every one of us.

Now I’m a little older and a little smarter. And what I hope for is to not marry a man like David. And I don’t want my future kids to have a dad like Abraham, who would sacrifice his son because he heard voices. I definitely wouldn’t want to marry a man who prays upon and bases his ideology on the Bible, especially not with messages like these:

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. — 1 Timothy 2:11

If men need fiction to grow up, I’m thinking books like To Kill a Mockingbird, The Handmaid’s Tale, If This is a Man (not fiction), and Brave New World are good starts. To me, Stieg Larsson‘s Millennium series offers more of a solid condemnation of violence done to women than the Bible does.

What do you think? Are the statistics concerning the growing immaturity of men overblown? And if not, what will help?

(Image via Shutterstock)

As easily as that, I began to identify as an ally. I went on to intern at the Family Equality Council & worked a legislative assistant on civil rights, including LGBT equality, during my time at the Religious Action Center after college. I’ve served as managing editor of Fusion, an LGBT issues magazine, marched in a pride parade, & have just generally done my best to work for equality whenever possible. I have a really difficult time respecting differences of opinion when it comes to civil rights. I do my best to be respectful of other people’s views, but it’s really hard for me to see any other side here. As I see it, it’s as basic as treating people fairly, & I just can’t see any other side to that.

When I learned this month that my hometown gym, the city-owned Natatorium, is discriminating against same-sex couples in their membership options, I quickly signed onto a petition asking them to change their policies. Then, I shot off a Facebook message to Shane, the guy behind the petition, asking how I could help. Shane attempted to get a couples pass for himself & his new husband & was turned away, told their marriage “isn’t real” despite the fact that they were legally married four months ago in Washington, D.C. His husband, Coty, is a disabled Iraq Wat veteran who uses the Natatorium for water therapy; Shane is his caretaker.

Kate got word out about the discrimination and the story began popping up on some major websites. Thousands of people signed the online petition and you should, too. Many have written messages of disappointment on the Natatorium’s Facebook page. There are also plans to call the Mayor’s Office en masse this Tuesday and 200+ people have already signed up to do that.

All this because Kate had the inspiration to do something about a troubling situation and she took advantage of the tools at her disposal to share her message with a wider audience. She also had the courage to publicly speak out on a potentially controversial subject — but she didn’t care because civil rights for all people shouldn’t be an issue.

We love praising activists. But let’s be clear: Anyone can do what they do. It takes a lot of courage and a little bit of knowledge about how to get your message out. But if you’re sure you’re doing the right thing, it’s not as hard as it seems.

This is why projects like the OUT Campaign, atheist bloggers/writers/speakers — hell, anyone who lists their religion on Facebook as “Atheist” — are so important in our movement. If you can be open and comfortable about your (non-)religious beliefs, it won’t be as hard to take the next step and speak out when a politician says we’re a “Christian nation” or there’s an injustice regarding church/state separation.