deconversion

Back in the 19th century, there was a notorious piece of anti-Catholic propaganda called "The Awful Adventures of Maria Monk", which purported to tell the "truth" about what went on behind the scenes in convents.  It spawned a whole genre that was eagerly lapped up by a public willing to hear the worst about priests and nuns--secret tunnels, buried babies--and even now these stories keep popping up in anti-Catholic circles.   More than once I found myself having to defend the Church when these accusations would come up (usually in a fundamentalist Protestant setting).  It baffled me how anyone could believe such nonsense.  Obviously, they had never had any contact with nuns or monks or priests.  Because there was not a shred of truth to any of these stories--right?

Now flash forward to the last 20 or so years, where a scandal of even greater proportions than Maria Monk and her ilk is sweeping the Catholic Church.   I watched, dumbfounded as the revelations of sexual abuse and coverup started coming in, little by little, and snowballing to include the entire world-wide Church.  And again, it baffled me.  Maybe one or two priests might be guilty but no way could all of them?

But as the revelations and coverup continued, my bewilderment and dismay turned to anger.  How dare these men tell anyone how to conduct their sex lives, when they themselves were blatantly breaking their PUBLIC vows of chastity by raping children, and being sheltered from the consequences by their superiors who knew full well what was going on?  How dare they?   What they had done and are still doing is a slap in the face to every Catholic who still lives by the Church's rules regarding sex.  Especially those Catholics, like myself, who ended up unmarried because we would not compromise and who endured a lot of abuse because of it.  I took no vows of chastity.  But I can honestly say that I have never forced myself on another human being.

Now I pick up the paper and read where the Pope is upset because Belgian police have seized computers and detained bishops as part of an investigation into clergy abuse.  His Not-So-Holiness has even issued a statement of solidarity to the bishops.  Where is the statement of solidarity towards the victims?  Where is the statement of solidarity towards the faithful?  There was a time when I once defended the Church.  No longer.

If the Church wants to regain its credibility, it must stop impeding investigations and start cooperating.   It needs to stop sheltering those that have been accused of sexual abuse and let the law take care of them.  It needs to stop making lame excuses and come right out and say, we blew it.  It needs to apologize to the victims and to the faithful.  The guilty parties and the bishops need to publicly explain to the public WHY they did what they did, and WHY they covered it up.  Then, and only then, can the Church speak on sexual matters.

But I am not holding my breath . . .

I have been reading a little book called "Brace For Impact" by Thomas A. Lewis.  Its subtitle is "Surviving the Crash of the Industrial Age By Sustainable Living."  This is one of the "scriptures" of Peak Oil religion.  It's pretty typical, starting out with humans living in hunter-gatherer paradise until they committed the original sin of learning agriculture.  From that point on it is pretty much downhill, especially when we get to the Industrial Revolution.

Thomas' premise (and the other Peak Oilers') is that we are now in a situation analogous to the Titanic, and in order to survive we have to take to the lifeboats.  Not all of us, of course, there are not enough lifeboats.  But what Thomas forgets or neglects to say is that lifeboats are only good if they have a destination, whether another ship or land.  If the Carpathia hadn't reached the lifeboats in time, there would have been no Titanic survivors at all! 

Keeping that in mind, let's look at Thomas' lifeboat, sustainable living.  What does he recommend?  Mainly moving way out into the country, learning to raise your own crops and living off-grid.  Of course that is not going to be very realistic for the vast majority of us, and here is where he tips his hand.  "Because we understand that evolution can only work through the death of the ill-equipped, we can see what is coming as a transition to a healthier, more fulfilling life lived in concert with the world and not as its mortal enemy."

Oh, really?  Let's just take a look into the future.  The Big Die-off has occurred, big business and industry are no more, and the first-class survivors are now living happily ever after on their homesteads.  Right?
Now let me ask, what happens when you or one of your family members accidentially steps on a nail?  Remember, civilization as we know it has essentially collapsed.  Hurrah!  Hurrah!  Remember Thomas' words as you or your loved one suffer the agonies of tetanus.   Or rabies.  Or have to endure repeated childbirth (remember, no pharmaceuticals, no birth control pills, only what is available through natural herbal medicine) and see child after child die as was very common up until fairly recently in human history.  In the miniseries "John Adams", his daughter Nabby had to undergo a mastectomy without benefit of anesthesia in order to save her life from breast cancer (yes, women did get that back in the Good Old Days).  That was considered cutting-edge technology (pardon the pun), and it did add a few years to  her life, but can you imagine what she went through?  The doctors told her parents she was one of the bravest women they saw.

In the antebellum American South, the large plantations were pretty much self-sufficient because they were little towns in themselves.  Slaves not only picked cotton and looked after Massa in the big house, they were carpenters, bricklayers, coopers, blacksmiths, cooks (the African contribution to American cooking is only now being appreciated).  I do not see anywhere in Lewis' book where he advocates that people acquire these skills.  Yet they are going to be vitally needed if the Peak Oil vision of collapse is true and we have to basically reinvent the wheel.  But even the plantations did not produce everything they need.  Cotton, for example, was shipped to England and the northern states to make cloth in those bad old industrial revolution textile mills.  I don't see anything in Lewis about learning to make cloth, and anyway cotton doesn't grow everywhere.  So much for "local economies".  Come to think of it, even the Native Americans had continent-wide networks of trade for goods and raw materials that were only available at a few selected spots.  Knives and arrowheads can only be made from certain kinds of stone such as flint or obsidian; and these are not just laying around waiting to be picked up.  You have to know your materials and know what to do with them even in a Stone Age society.

If these people are serious about what is coming, and not just playing games, they need to look at the whole picture.  There is a reason why civilization developed the way it did.  I hear a lot of anti-technology and anti-big talk.  Well, even Wal-Mart started out as one little store.  If big business is bad, how are you going to stop a business owner from expanding?  Tell him or her he or she can only have one or two shops at most and they can only have so many employees?  I see something rather insidious at work here.

Mind you, I am all for sustainable living and protecting the environment, but I think that some of these people have an agenda.  They want it all for themselves.  They think that they can get in their lifeboats and merrily row off while the rest of us go under with the ship.  Well, I hate to burst your bubble, folks, but the Carpathia isn't coming and shore is a long, long way away.

And that is why I call Peak Oil a religion.

"No Irish Need Apply."  Back during the days of the great Irish emigration to the United States, anti-Catholic and anti-Irish feeling was so strong that this sign was a common sight in many places of business.  Well, those days are gone--but are they?

Mind you, I am not advocating turning back the clock to the days when it was not only legally permissible to discriminate against (name your minority), it was in many places the "in" thing to do.  I have never really understood the rationale behind segregation and apartheid; to me, it sounds like a grownup version of the childhood "cooties" game, only codified into law.  But there was one advantage to the old system--you definitely knew where you stood.  A person who was prejudiced did not have to hide it.  While the Civil Rights movement has for the most part brought welcome and long-overdue social change, it did not necessarily change people's hearts.  Bigots still remain bigots; the only thing is they can not legally express themselves as such. 

It is not groups like the Klan and the Nazis that I fear so much as it is the person who claims to be liberal and tolerant until--you find yourself in a situation where all the cards are out on the table, and it turns out the person who claims to be such actually has some very strong biases against whatever race or viewpoint that you represent.  Those kind of people are much harder to deal with because you never know.   I work at a company that is occasionally picketed by people who do not agree with what we do.  I do not have any problem with that, they are simply exercising their First Amendment right, and the fact that they can come and picket just shows that we still have a democracy.  It is the people that are not out front picketing that I worry about because I do not know what they may be up to.

Where I do have a problem is with the hidden agendas and biases.  Back in the 1980's I used to enjoy science fiction conventions.  However, I could not help noticing a very anti-Christian atmosphere, and it puzzled me.  Weren't science fiction conventions supposed to be a place where all science fiction fans could meet?  Then what was this with this "No Christians Need Apply" business?  No, they could not legally put up the signs, but they sure could, and did, provide what we call in the workplace "a hostile environment".

On the flip side of the coin, I went to a country music festival.  Now I happen to enjoy country music (and yes, some of it is pretty dreadful).  This is a festival promoted as being open to all.  So what happened?  The MC launches into a tirade against "those atheists who want to ban prayer but we are not going to let them stop us By God."  What does this have to do with a country music festival?  "No Atheists Need Apply."

What is even more disturbing is the name-calling and other types of intimidation that occurs when someone states an unpopular opinion.  Instead of discussing the issue, there is an attempt to silence the person by discrediting him or her.  I call it the Emperor's New Clothes trick.  It is usually the first weapon hurled.  The idea is that some opinions, some ideas are not valid and those that hold them are best advised to remain silent.

Whenever I see this happening I have to ask myself, who benefits from this silencing and why?  What is going on here?  Is this another situation where "no 'Irish' need apply?"   It is a bit uncomfortable and disconcerting to realize that you are the "Irish" that need not apply, that what you have to bring to the table is not welcome; that it should not even be brought up.  Sometimes you don't even have to say anything to learn this; all you have to do is sit back and listen to the general tenor of the discussion.  You can learn a lot that way.

I have an interesting challenge to those who believe that I may be exaggerating things somewhat and that is, when talking to their friends and colleagues, to take an opposite view of what is being talked about.  If they are atheists, reveal yourself as a Christian.  If they are Christian, reveal yourself as an atheist.  If they are pro-choice, reveal yourself as pro-life or vice versa.  If they are conservative, reveal yourself as liberal, and so forth.  It does not matter, for the sake of the experiment, what your actual views are.  I guarantee, you will learn some very interesting things about human nature that way and you will definitely learn where "No 'Irish' need apply".

In the movie "Precious" there is a scene where she is walking along the sidewalk and we are treated to the thoughts in her head.  For those of you who haven't seen this movie yet, Precious is a poor, illiterate, grossly overweight 17-year-old African-American who is pregnant for the second time by her mother's boyfriend (who is also her father).  She lives in circumstances most of us probably can't even begin to imagine.  And Precious is well aware of this.  She has learned long ago there is no sense in even trying to communicate with a world so different it might well be another planet.

In this scene Precious is thinking about how she wants to die.   She can't see any reason for living; and quite frankly, she is right.  She is, in an overpopulated world, "surplus."  Why should anyone expend any energy on her?   Worse yet, she has reproduced herself--twice.  Two more mouths to feed.   When she gives birth the second time, the well-meaning and well-off white teacher at her alternative school tries to push her into giving her child up for adoption.  Never mind what Precious wants.  We all know what is best for her.  But Precious somehow finds the courage to stand up and say this child is my child and I am going to raise her even if it is hard.

If you and I were on that sidewalk with Precious, what would we say to her?  She tells the teacher later on, when the teacher says that there are people who care for her, "Don't lie to me."  Precious sees things all too clearly.  She has no illusions about her place in the scheme of things.  So what would we tell her?

I don't know if the world is overpopulated, but I do know one thing--that overpopulation means there is a surplus of people.  And each and every one of these so-called surplus people have names.  They are not an abstract concept to be discussed at a distance.  They have dreams.  They have wants.  They have feelings.  They have rights--or do they?  Is anyone willing to look Precious in the eye and say, yes, you are right, you are one of the unwanted surplus, so why don't you just go on and get out of the way of the rest of us? 

I may have my difficulties with Christianity but one of the greatest ideas to come out of that religion is the idea that we are all precious, each and every one of us because we are made in the image and likeness of God.  I do not see its equivalent in the secular world.  What I am seeing is an ethic which increasingly regards certain classes of humans as having little or no value, and resents them for using resources that by rights belong to their betters.  There isn't even the pretence of "everyone is equal but some are more equal than others." 

Trust me, the unwanted surplus poor may not be taking an active part in the conversation about overpopulation, but they most certainly are listening and they most certainly do know what the rest of us think about them.  And some day they may not be so apathetic as they now appear. 

Lately I have been following the Peak Oil scene, and it looks to me that we have a new religion emerging in our midst.  In its secular form, what Peak Oil is referring to is the fact that the production of any given oilfield will increase to a certain peak and then start to decline.  This is indisputable and applies to all oilfields (and natural gas).  Even big fields like the Middle Eastern ones won't last forever.  So it makes sense to find alternatives and conserve what we do have.  

However, it is its religious aspects that I want to consider here.  While Peak Oil does not seem to have any deities (with the possible exception of Gaia), it does have its scriptures, prophets, missionaries and sects.  These seem to be composed of a curious hybrid of New Agers, Greens and others on the liberal side of the spectrum.  Not long ago I attended a (private) meeting of one such group and received quite an eye-opening.  Though they gave a great deal of lip service to diversity, it was quite clear from one of the speakers' remarks that no one who did not share their political convictions need apply.  Especially if one was a member of certain specified Christian denominations.  As I listened to this individual's rant, I kept thinking of my neighbors, my friends, my community, and how they see things, and I thought, you want me to bring your group's message to them?  Not a chance in hell!   Bigotry is still bigotry whether on the Left or the Right.  Needless to say I have not been back.

Peak Oil also has its mythology.  Once upon a time we were living far more sustainably then we are today, before we committed the original sin of using fossil fuels and embarked upon the evil Industrial Revolution.  That era is now drawing to an end.  Salvation is coming for a favored few; as for the rest of us poor slobs--well, here is the ugly side of Peak Oil religion and one they don't really like to talk about.

One of the core doctrines of this movement is that there are simply too many of us on this planet.  Now this idea has been around for a long, long time (see Pharaoh's remarks in Exodus about the Israelites becoming "too numerous") but in the last 40 years or so, it has really gained momentum among certain groups and individuals who are almost invariably white and are among the more well-to-do members of society.  Although they talk about being "pro-choice", they most definitely do not support a woman's right to choose more than the number of children they think she ought to have, usually no more than two.  And here is the big fallacy behind the whole reproductive rights thing:  that reproduction is a private issue.  It is not.  Otherwise governments like China's would not be so interested in limiting how many children a woman has.  Something more sinister is going on here than simply giving women options.  The two Christian groups that were singled out at that meeting are well known for their advocacy of large families.  So far, the Amish, who also have large families, have been exempt from this criticism, but their day will come. 

Well, seeing that there are too many of us, what is to be done with those who are considered surplus?  Peak Oil religion has an answer to that, too.  It is called the Big Die-off.  As I listened to the conversations around me, it was quite clear that these people are anti-big everything.  One of the reasons the Industrial Revolution is so evil  is that it enables the masses to live better lives.   Get rid of the masses, and you won't need factory farms, you won't need factories, you won't need Wal-mart.  The exit of the capitalists, the factory owners, the inventors, as described in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, all those are welcomed by this crowd, who feel they will be immune from the consquences.   After all they are the saved.

In such a world there will be no provision made for the disabled or others with special needs.  I recently heard a Lions Club speaker describe how new technology has enriched the lives of the blind.  Unfortunately this new technology is very expensive and out of reach for most of the people it is designed to benefit.  Do you honestly think that Peak Oil religionists will support that technology?  Not when I hear blanket statements like "computers are evil".  Not when I hear people pridefully describe themselves as Luddites.   Not neo-Luddites, mind you, but Luddites.   In their brave new world, debates over stem cell research will be irrelevant, because there will be no research and no health care, except for what was available prior to the Industrial Revolution.  Modern medicine is bad.  Herbal remedies are good.  (I do wonder, what will happen to their beloved birth control pills and patches when evil Big Pharma is no more.)

In my mind, this is a dangerous new religion indeed.

Imagine that you wake up and find yourself seated at a table where a very complex card game is in progress.  You are dealt a hand of cards and told to play.  It soon dawns on you that you are expected to know all the rules of this game, all its nuances, without ever having been taught this game.  Nor are you allowed to ask.  Asking is an infraction of the rules, and any infraction is dealt with by scorn, ostracism, and other forms of abuse.  You watch the other players, only to find that the rules appear to vary depending on who they are.  There are secret deals being done under the table all the time, deals that don't include you, but involve you.   One thing you can be sure of is that the rules constantly change without warning.  A play or move that you thought was all right, and had been allowed to continue as being all right, suddenly becomes wrong.  "Others may--you cannot."  You try and try to make some sense of the game but get nowhere.  It is all your fault.  You are the one with the problem.  So you go to leave only to find out that you are in the Hotel California--there is no leaving the game.  You have to play, even though as the game continues you have this sickening feeling that you will never ever succeed in understanding it.

You get up from the table and make your way to the restroom.  Here you meet someone who hasn't the faintest clue as to your plight and wouldn't begin to understand it if you could find the words to tell them.   Someone who is free to leave the game at any time.   They see that you are distressed and they start telling you about an invisible Person in the sky who loves you and cares for you and that if only you would accept this Person into your heart, everything would go fine for you.  The reason that you are having trouble is because you are resisting this Person.  This Person has put this trouble into your life because He wants you to be close to Him.  What can you say?  You know that this person is wrong in their assessment of the situation but what can you say?  At any rate, you are desperate to escape this situation which was not of your own doing (but which you learn was created by this all-powerful Person), so you agree.  And you make your way back to the table.

But do things go any better from this point on?  No!  In some ways they become even worse.  Somehow this invisible Person has become interwoven with the rules of the game, and you are told that you did not accept Him in the right way, or you never really accepted Him, or that you are asking too much of Him, that He does not work that way.  You are told on one hand that you can't play the game without this Invisible Partner; on the other hand, you are told that you cannot play the game with this Invisible Partner.  No matter what you do, you are wrong.  And there is no way out.

Welcome to the world of Asperger's.

"Only ignorance! only ignorance! how can you talk about only ignorance? Don't you know that it is the worst thing in the world, next to wickedness?--and which does the most mischief heaven only knows. If people can say 'Oh! I did not know, I did not mean any harm, they think it is all right."--from Black Beauty by Anna Sewell Well, it is over. The Springers have been found not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of their daughter Calista (see my blog The Island of Misfit Toys). I am not surprised, since under Michigan law, to prove first-degree murder you have to prove intent to kill, and I do not believe (as did the jury) that this was the case. They were found guilty of torture and first-degree child abuse, and could spend the rest of their lives in prison. But then again, who knows. The appeals could drag on forever. This was clearly not an easy case to decide. Despite all the glowing mush often written about the joys of having one of God's mismade little angels in the family, the sad truth is that these children often bring out the worst in people, especially a family that may not be all that stable to begin with. And this seems to be the case here. No, the Springers didn't mean to murder their daughter, but she does seem to have been made the scapegoat of the family and she paid a very heavy price for having the problems that she did. Which brings up the old old question of a loving God. Presumably Calista, no matter how intellectually impaired she was, had been introduced to the concept of a Jesus who loves the little children, all the little children of the world, because according to the paper, their church "rallied" around the Springers right after the fire that took her life. Did she cry out to that Jesus as the choking smoke closed in, knowing there was no way she could get free of that chain. And did that Jesus come to her in the end? Or was she so drugged that mercifully she did not know what was happening (apparently the lab found abnormally high levels of Benedryl in her blood)? I am surprised that the prosecution did not go for a charge of negligent homicide or manslaughter, which I think would have been far more easy to prove. After all, this clearly seems to be a case of "only ignorance"--they didn't know that chaining her like that would endanger her, they didn't mean any harm. Or did they? Either way, it no longer matters. One troublesome child has left this earth to cause trouble no more. And we can all go on our way.

Remember the Island of Misfit Toys from "Rudoph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"?  For those who somehow haven't seen the Christmas special, the Island was where all the toys that didn't make the grade at Santa's workshop were sent.  Rudolph and his friends feel so sorry for these rejected toys that they decide to include them in Santa's bag so that they too can have a home.  So they do so, and presumably everyone lives happily ever after.

But I always wondered what happened the next morning when children found these malfunctioning and mismade toys under the tree?  Were they delighted?  Somehow I don't think so.  Maybe the toys were better off on their island after all.  

This week in a small town not far from where I live, a jury is deciding the fate of the Springers, whose 16-year-old daughter Calista died in a house fire in 2008.  The details are enough to turn one's stomach.  Calista was found dead of smoke inhalation, chained to her bed by a dog chain that firemen had to cut in order to free her.   The Springers said they had to chain her because she wandered at night.  But the fire broke out in the morning while her legally blind stepmother was vaccuuming downstairs and her stepsisters had already gone to school.  Calista, who was described as having an autistic spectrum disorder, and an IQ of 74, was allegedly being homeschooled.   According to her parents, she was taken out of school because the school was more intent on educating her than socializing her.   According to the school, she was removed by her parents because school personnel (and others) made too many complaints to Child Protective Services.  Michigan has one of the most lenient homeschooling laws in the nation.  Anyone can homeschool and there is no follow-up by authorities to see if that is indeed happening.  A perfect set-up if you want to hide child abuse.  Predictably, the home-schooling crowd does not want this to change.  When an area businessman said that he did not like to hire people who were homeschooled, because in his experience, they lacked critical skills in dealing with people from diverse backgrounds, he was jumped on and called a bigot.

I do not know how the jury will rule in this case.  The state is pressing for first-degree murder and child torture, which means that the Springers fully intended for Calista to die.  Everyone seems to agree that the fire itself was an accident.  Personally I think the state is making a mistake and it is very possible that the Springers will get off.  The jury has been out several days now.

What especially disturbs me about this case, is that there for the grace of God, or good luck, or whatever, go I.  When it came time for the defense to take the stand, this poor dead girl was demonized, called a liar and dangerous to herself and others.  An expert, who never met Calista, testified that "these children" are "emotional vampires" who suck the energy out of those around them.  Having been one of "these children" myself, I greatly object to this characterization.  No, the Springers may not have set out to kill Calista, but it sure sounds a whole lot like "good riddance to bad rubbish."

So what is to be done with us "misfit toys" who are admittedly not easy to raise?  Would euthanizing us shortly after diagnosis be the kinder thing?  We could call it parental choice or some such euphemism.  After all, what happened in that Centerville bedroom was nobody's business, was it?

When I was in my twenties, I worked for a brief time at a racetrack walking horses.  This was in the Seventies, not long Secretariat burst upon the scene in blue-and-white-checked copper glory to break the Triple Crown drought.  Women were just starting to become jockeys.  And I had this crazy idea that I would become one of them.  So I packed up my car and headed off to fame and fortune.  I didn't find either. 

I started out as a "hot walker", the lowest of the low, working with horses that were the lowest of the low.  I wasn't even allowed to shovel manure--that was for the grooms, the next up on the hierarchy.  My job was to take each horse as it came back from exercise (in the morning) or racing (in the afternoon) and walk it for about a half-hour until it was all cooled out and ready to go back in its stall.  For that I received the princely sum of five dollars per horse--if I got paid.  My first employer was a trainer who had the reputation of telling his help that the horses weren't doing so well this week, so maybe next week . . . Needless to say he had a high turnover.

Every morning I had to take a leather strap with a two-foot chain on it and thread the chain around the horse's halter noseband.  This was called the shank.  If the horse misbehaved or did something that wasn't allowed, I had to yank hard on the shank to get its attention.  This may sound cruel but when you are in close quarters with a panicky 1,000+ lb Thoroughbred, you need to get control and quickly. 

It seemed like the trainers and grooms were always telling me to "shank" a horse for the slightest thing.  The poor horses weren't allowed to be horses.   They had to be living robots.  Most particularly, they were not allowed to show any interest in the opposite sex whatsover.  That was a shanking offense.  One groom told me many stallions when they are first retired to stud refuse to breed at first--because they have learned that "mares are trouble" and don't want anything to do with them.

Now, looking back, I can see many times where I was "shanked" in my sexual development by those around me.  It seemed like almost everyone around me was conspiring to keep me ignorant and passive.  I remember my mother's anger when she learned that I had already learned the "facts of life" from a classmate in the sixth grade.  Anger that someone had beat her to it, or anger at me for learning what I was not supposed to know?  Or the time when my Bible Study group was going to go swimming and one of the women asked me not to wear a two-piece suit because it might stir up the guys.  I told her I didn't have a two-piece suit, and then added, what about what the guys wear?  She was horrified!  You don't mean to tell me you look?  Well duh, I am 16 years old, what do you think?  Isn't this supposed to be part of the natural progression of life?   Or how about the married abstinence group leader who reluctantly admitted that she felt that sex was more important to guys, that they get more out of it.  Or being told by a Christian "friend" that a certain V-necked dress was too low cut even though the V-neck stopped far north of any real cleavage.  Like a racehorse with a shank around its halter, my budding sexuality was micromanaged, suppressed, and discouraged.

And then I entered the world of dating.  I have already written about the sexual abuse that happened there.  Nothing, and I mean nothing, in my "training" had prepared me for this.  I truly did not understand what was going on and what I was supposed to do.  The sad thing is, I still don't.    I suspect that there are a lot of Christian women out there like me who are trying to come to grips with being sexually damaged.  Who are trying to overcome their earlier brainwashing and find on some level they can't.  Who have nobody to talk to, Christian or otherwise, and just live their lives in lonely desperation.

I have been reading Frank Schaeffer's "Crazy for God" and it is bringing back memories of where I was in the 80's.   Both Schaeffers (father and son) had an influence on my thinking then and to some degree still do.  I think that they had a lot of valid things to say about our culture, and, yes, it was refreshing to "encounter" evangelicals who were not off in their little cocoon but could actually have an intelligent conversation about things other than their brand of Christianity.   What a shock, then, to read what they were really like behind the scenes.  But somehow, it doesn't surprise me.

Frank says he now regrets his role in forming the religious right, that he and his father were used.  But I find it rather interesting that while he still maintains his pro-life views, he says nothing about his own personal behavior and how it may have contributed to the rise of the very abortion culture he deplores.   What I mean by that is that he freely admits to having fathered at least one child out of wedlock.  Even though he did go on to marry the mother, she was not the only one he had sex with, and I'd say it is a safe bet that he was not using birth control.  That's real responsible, all right.  But again, I am not surprised.

You see I was brought up on a lie.  That sex was supposed to be saved for marriage.   I bought the whole package, hook, line and sinker, a virgin Snow White waiting for her virgin prince.  How romantic.  I was told very little about how life really was.  It is ironic that the very people who insisted I face reality in other aspects, allowed and even encouraged me to live in a fantasy world when it came to sex.  My view of courtship and dating was somewhere between Jane Austin and Gone With the Wind.  Books like Elizabeth Elliot's Passion and Purity didn't help either, where she admitted that she and her husband never kissed or even held hands until after they were married.  My innocence came to an abrupt end on my first date at the movies with a boy from my homeroom when he thrust his tongue between my lips without warning, grabbed my hand and pushed it down his pants, and said, "I have a hard-on, do you want to see it?"  I literally went into shock.  These things did not happen to good Christian girls.  It was my fault.  I  didn't wait for God to send me someone, I wasn't Christian enough and I was being punished.   I went home and didn't tell anyone.

From that point on, dating became a nightmare.  If I wasn't arguing about sex, I was physically fighting off sex.  I turned to the local abstinence movement for help and got none.  I wanted to know where these men were who believed in waiting until marriage.  I said that I had not encountered any, and that my classmates and co-workers (both male and female) said that nobody waits for marriage, and that if anyone tells you that they did, they are lying.  Oh, no, there are men out there who are not "like that."  You have just met the wrong kind.  You have to stop going out to bars.  I DON'T GO TO BARS! 

So here I sit, still single, entering the last half of my life, and I pick up a book by one of my idols and read that he didn't even bother to wait to have sex with the woman he loved.  This, from a man who basically was the pro-life movement, who was an abstinence speaker.  And my peers are in the background nodding and saying, see, we told you so, but you did not listen.  There are no words to express the sense of betrayal I feel.  Like Jeremiah, I was tricked and I let myself be tricked.

I would like to hear an explanation from those who, like Frank Schaeffer, encouraged premarital chastity on others but did not care to follow it themselves.   I know I won't get one.   But I do feel like I and every other single person who has remained faithful to that idea--at great personal cost--have been slapped in the face and made fools of.   And then people wonder why I no longer go to church . . .