Reaching the goal of Marriage Equality: Why I truly felt the pride

It happened now over a month ago, but I am still reflecting on how the aftershocks of THAT decision in the USA continue to reverberate all across the Caribbean. The lingering vibrations even greater than the ones the Kick'em Jenny underwater volcano has been able to produce.

It was Friday June 26th. The day when we all read the headline.'Same sex marriage is now legal all across the U.S'. Ever since then, pastors from my home country Barbados and the wider Caribbean have been been digging their heels in, vowing to keep 'marriage equality' from reaching their island shores, as if it were a rare and lethal form of dengue or ebola.

Of course for me, it was not a decision that filled me with any worries. Indeed, I saw it as a landmark victory and I felt without doubt that I was part of the winning team. In some respects, it reminded me of how I felt in 2008, when Barack Obama was declared US president. It was a day you hoped you'd be alive to witness,  but never in your wildest dreams expected be there to see. I felt elated for the LGBT community, because I know for them it has been and will continue to be a long hard struggle. But even in my own euphoria, I stopped to reflect a bit.

I am not a member of the LGBT community and I don't live in the US,  so why was I feeling so excited?  Why was I so emotional?  Why was I fighting to hold back the tears? To be quite honest, I really wasn't sure. Canada has had marriage equality for a decade now, so it's no really an issue here where I live. However, though we don't always like to admit it, what happens in the US tends to have a far greater influence on the rest of the world than what happens in other countries. I knew what happened in the US would have a big impact on the debate  in other parts of the world and that has happened. As a result of this ruling,  I believe that full marriage equality worldwide is now a matter of 'when' rather than 'if'. And that, as a certain vice president would say is  'a big fucking deal'.

But that still doesn't explain why it was a big deal for me. Having had now more time to think about it, I  recognize why. It is because I myself have had my own journey over the last few years.  A journey which has brought  as significant an opening of the mind as an opening of the heart. My journey has not been one where I was to trying to be able to love who I wanted to, mine has been one of a loss of love, separation from the God I once believed in. It was coming to terms with accepting an idea I embraced six years ago. The notion that there is no higher power, no cosmic leader or arbitrator beyond space and time that pulls the levers or keeps things in motion. Going through that transition in my belief system certainly provided its degree of emotion and at that time I considered it to be perhaps the biggest struggle of my life to get through. I remember well the anxiety and uncertainty of walking that narrow secular road ahead.

At that time, it was all about finding my own way and figuring how I would "come out" to family and friends and psychologically be able to navigate in the world without that spirit to guide. Still, I happily embraced the world of 'reason' and looked on it to lead the way. In trying to come to grips with my new life, I started to reach out. First through this blog which I started back in 2010 and then through joining organizations such as Centre for Inquiry (CFI) here in Calgary.

In time these associations and activities brought me in contact with more atheist, humanist and secular groups. I discovered atheist and secular podcasts which quickly became my daily diet of listening. Two years later, I would also become a podcaster, doing what I could to add to reasonable rational voices already out there.

I realize now, that on that Friday 'same sex marriage' morning the journey that was pulling at my heartstrings was not my journey to atheism, but my journey since atheism. The journey that has led to me walking arm in arm with so many secularists all over the world. Now that I have successfully navigated my personal 'coming out' as an atheist,  I have discovered that my non-theism is about far more than ME.  It goes far beyond just getting through as David Ince. It's about a family, a community and a world that is held back in so many ways because of the prevalence of religious laws, religious norms and religious thinking that will still take many more years to sweep away.

In the beginning of my atheist life, as much as it was exciting to find a community that I could identify with and feel good about being able to reason with, it was also at times distinctly uncomfortable. The discomfort came from the fact that I realised just how much 'un-reason' there was in the world and how many people were suffering because of it day by day. People have lost their lives, families, jobs and been sent into exile in many places due to 'unreason'. Much of this irrationality stems from religion, and I felt that we as secular people, who understood these issues more than most, had a responsibility to try to fix them. But were we doing enough? Was I doing enough?

Moving beyond my disbelief

I quite quickly realized that one of the biggest issues that the secular movement was involved in, certainly in the western world, was gay rights and rights within the LGBT movement in general.
The first president of the CFI in Calgary when I joined back in 2010 was Mike Gray, He was an enthusiastic leader, passionate about building the secular community and also openly gay. I remember he would from time to time wear a t-shirt with the word "Gaytheist" emblazoned on the front.

I smiled when I saw him do that, but it also was a genuine eye opener for me. For all my time growing up in Barbados I knew my fair share of gay people, or should I say my fair share of people 'rumoured to be gay.' But that's the point, it was never something anyone wore as a source of pride, it was a mark of shame, something to hide from at all costs.

Discovering the word 'homosexual'

I remember very well the first time I heard the word 'homosexual' when I was about seven years old.. One heavy set young fellow pushed a smaller boy on the pasture at school and the little guy responded with the words  "You're a homosexual!" I can guarantee that none of us around there had a clue what that word meant. But we just knew it had to be something bad, really bad. A word so big couldn't be benign. It had four whole syllables, it had to be something dangerous and terrible. Indeed at the time, I think it was the only four syllable word we knew.

So, for the rest of that term the word 'homosexual' became the insult word of choice. It was all fun for us as kids, nothing too serious. But looking back I think the anti gay sentiment was set in for us even back then. I came to learn that homosexual was just the more formal word for 'buller' that pejorative 'b' word for being gay in Barbados.

Yes, as I grew up into adolescence in Barbados I came to realize that you could pretty much survive being accused of anything, but one thing you never wanted to be was to be 'accused' of being gay. No, if anyone were to think that even for a moment, your entire reputation would be flushed down the toilet.  Guaranteed!  In fact in my parents' generation a common euphemism for referring to a person who was gay was to call them a person 'of doubtful reputation'. I have seen it many times, artists, musicians, scientists and sportsmen. All their achievements glibly glossed over as people say ' but you know he is a 'b*****.

Backing away

I can remember one term in secondary school when I began to talk quite regularly to this one guy, as we both used to get picked up from school around the same time. One morning,  a classmate called me aside and said he had noticed I had been spending a lot of time talking with this friend. He warned me that this individual was known to be gay and if I continued to hang out with him, people would start to believe I was the same way too. I was shocked by what I heard and from the very next evening I started cutting my conversations with my new friend short and about two weeks later I was finding other people to hang out with on afternoons. It's embarrassing to look back at that now and I wish I could go back and change it, but that's just the way it was.

In spite of this, I certainly was not among the 'homophobic' in Barbados.  As a liberal, I was always in favour of gays having whatever rights others were entitled to. However, there was still a level of distance that I felt I wanted to keep from them. I endorsed the idea that gays should be equal but still separate. You should tolerate them, but that didn't mean you went out of your way to have them as your best friend. People may find this surprising, but my position at that time was at the very progressive end of the spectrum of attitudes in Barbadian society.  The more conservative  view was. 'You gays just need to find Jesus and stop sinning'.  And of course as 'good Christians' the conservatives were called to reach out to this community in 'love' by helping them to turn from their 'nasty' and  'wicked' lifestyle.

In spite of this hurtful kind of rhetoric, I have to say that at least to Barbados' credit, we never had the violence against gays that other Caribbean countries such as Jamaica had to endure. Indeed, many in the Caribbean often saw Barbados as the most 'gay friendly' island and we Bajans can attest to being frequently teased about this from our island neighbours. Additionally, within Barbados  we often made fun of the gay community ourselves. The easiest way for a comedian to get a cheap laugh, was to  make a joke about homosexuals or trans sexuals. The way they talked, the way the walked the way they dressed, it was all fodder for various forms of ridicule. That was the comedy we seemed to like more than any other type. The popular comedy and calypso singing group MADD milked it for all it was worth through their 'ArchiBULL Cox' character. For so many years we laughed and laughed, lapping up the hilarity without much of a second thought. For those of us who were straight, we would privately let out a sigh of relief that at least we weren't one of THEM.

So when I came in to the secular world and realized that the people I grew up  identifying as those "THEMS" were actually important allies,  it was somewhat of an about turn for me to take. As I said. I have never had problems with the movement for 'gay rights', but a lot of my feelings before being an atheist activist were pretty apathetic. I thought they deserved rights, but I didn't see it as something I needed to get up off the couch and join them in the fight for.

But my views changed quickly, from the time I started going to weekly CFI meetings, held at the 'Sapien ' night club.' Sapien' was a gay club, it's name a clever short form for 'homo- sapien'. I remember feeling a bit uncomfortable telling people I was going there for meetings. Especially people from the Caribbean, who had enough trouble getting over the 'atheist' thing already. I had to admit that even as a freethinker and atheist I still had lingering fears about someone thinking I was gay when I was not. I felt embarrassed about having such feelings and never shared them with any of my new secular friends, most of whom had grown up in Canada and appeared to have no such hang ups like this at all.

I realized somewhat in horror, that even though I was a liberal by Barbadian standards, I still had a way to go in dealing with aspects of my thinking which still had  remnants of indoctrination. Shedding my belief in a god was indeed only the first step of many I would need to take to embrace rationality fully. Going on to meet people like our following president Nate Phelps (son of Fred Phelps) and strong LGBT activist made me understand more. I began to realize this was more of a fight about human rights than about 'approving' of particular sexual practices. Then we interviewed gay individuals from the Caribbean such as Duane Howard and Dadland Maye on 'Freethinking Island' who had faced backlash in their respective countries of Jamaica and Trinidad. Later we interviewed Angeline Jackson whose work as an advocate in Jamaica has made her  recognized publicly by no less a person than President Barack Obama.

But it wasn't all about the social impact of my new friends in the LGBT Community that affected my thinking. It was reason and  evidence of their arguments that ultimately made me open my mind fully on this issue. The LGBT movement, in putting forward their arguments for their rights, always made a convincing and compelling case. Their arguments  made me realize that not only did they deserve tolerance and acceptance, they deserved to be fully embraced and supported in their push for all basic human rights. That included the important right to all the benefits of being 'married' if they chose to go that route.

I came to learn that to look at the gay community as 'equal but separate' was just not good enough. To do that, would be like saying to blacks in times gone by, that you can drink the same water as the whites but you just need to go to a different water fountain. I began to understand why it was important that the word 'marriage' be used to define gay unions as well as straight ones. Many people like to say that if you let gays have a  'marriage like' union you should call it something else. But that's part of the 'separate but equal' mentality that I now definitely reject.

This is what I have come to love about being in the atheist and secular community. You get your views challenged all the time and you move or adjust your position in the face of a rational argument. That's how it should be. Losing my belief in a god, has allowed me to investigate these human rights issues without the inhibition of dogma. I have come to recognize that a world where rights are extended to more people is a win for all. When this happens we should be proud that we as a human species have identified an imbalance in our system and have taken measures to correct it.

Love your neighbour

So, the marriage equality win is not a win for the 'gays' it's a win for the world. I realize this is a difficult concept for some people. For  as much as Christians claim that being good is about loving your neighbour and caring for others, the truth is that religion is generally not about including others and loving unconditionally. It's about loving your 'neighbour' in a restricted sense. Loving those who are 'next to you' culturally or ideologically. In general, religion is not about loving people who are different and respecting them for who they are. For them, love is about trying to push others who may live far away into  becoming 'neighbours'. For its only when you are in the same 'neighbourhood' as them that they think you can experience love fully

This is where the whole 'love the sinner, hate the sin' comes from. Translated it means, 'We love you, but that love is expressed through placing emotional pressure on you to embrace our belief'. So they will argue that you can't really appreciate or understand love until you experience the love of Jesus. They'll say you will only get God's full approval, if you turn away from your 'sin' of being a homosexual. Love in  a religious context definitely comes with strings attached.

You don't have to be in our neighbourhood

But those of us on the secular side don't operate from that premise. Our aim is to love our 'neighbours' but also those who have taken up residence far away, those who may have likes, preferences and cultures far different from ours. It's about looking to defend the rights of the marginalized wherever they may be. It doesn't have to be us atheists ourselves that are the ones being denied the right. In fact it could be and often is the very religious who we disagree with, whose rights we want to defend.

I realize this is a very difficult concept for a lot of people.  That's why some of my friends in Barbados, including some in my own family, wondered if my putting the rainbow filter on my Facebook profile pic, was actually me coming out as a homosexual!

It's weird, but I think I get it. So often our world promotes a 'stand up for YOUR rights' attitude. Fight for what you think that YOU have been denied. It's important to do that, but that's not where it should end. You need to stand up for the rights of others as well, even as others stand up for YOUR rights. That's how we make the world better.  The fight is not over and the battle continues. Other groups will need the support as the years go on. None more so than the 'T's in the 'LGBT' movement, I think of my brave colleague in the Caribbean secular community Gabrielle Bellot, who is the Founder of the 'Caribbean Freethinkers' Society' blog and facebook group. Gabrielle is a transgender woman living in US, who now lives in fear of returning to her native Dominica since her transition. Given the disparaging comments that have been made about people like Caitlyn Jenner in her island and the rest of the Caribbean, her fear is not at all unfounded. Things like this make it clear that we need to keep up the fight both for those in our 'neighbourhood' and those who live well outside.

So we must go on. It's amazing and remarkable. A journey that started out for me as a mere disbelief in the existence of a god has become so much more along the way, and I truly feel the PRIDE when I think about that.

A long way to go to get past the bigotry: 'NO GAYS!' headline in Barbados newspaper highlights disturbing attitude

NO GAYS!

That was the blaring headline of the Nation Publications 'Saturday Sun' of yesterday, March 30th, 2013. I cringed when I saw it. It's a headline that makes all of us that live in, or have roots in Barbados seem backward and bigoted. It is ironic that it came at the end of a week where many in the world made their support for marriage equality known through changing facebook profile pics and making various statements to emphasise that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation. All the while the Supreme Court in the US was hearing oral arguments in the Proposition 8 Case dealing with these same issues.

When I saw the headline, I and most other readers I suspect, had no idea of the context of the statement. No Gays? No Gays in what? Where do we want to bar them from now? Who is making the statement? The sub heading gave a clue by revealing that it was all about the Chief Scout and his organization.

It may seem a bit odd to say, but for me that didn't really matter. The headline was in my view distasteful in the way it lashed out at a minority group. The message to them was ' We don't want you!'

Newspaper headlines are things you glance at quickly. The words hit you out of the corner of your eye when driving as you see the vendor at the side of the road, or catch your attention in the front of a bookstore in an airport terminal as you hustle to catch your next flight. Most people who see the headlines are never going to read the fine print below, but the impact of the words can be devastating.

We can recognise this by inserting another group for 'Gays' in that headline. The one that comes to mind first is 'Blacks.' What would the reaction have been if the front page headline had read 'NO BLACKS!' ? Would Barbadians have accepted that? What if we went to a country in Europe or Africa? How would we react to walking through the airport with our luggage and someone handing us a paper with 'NO BLACKS!" screaming as the headline? To say I would feel uncomfortable would be the understatement of the year. It wouldn't matter the context, it wouldn't matter what the article was saying that I shouldn't be a part of, I know I would feel tempted to just haul my suitcase up and book the next flight out and I am sure they are many that would feel the same way even if they didn't act on impulse.

What about other 'NO!' possibilities? 

NO WOMEN!

NO CHRISTIANS!

NO JEWS!

NO BAJANS!

NO TRINIS!

NO YANKEES!

I think you get the point. Any of these headlines would have been greeted with outrage. Calls would have been made for a retraction or apology.

Today after getting over some of the original disappointment over  yesterday's front page, I sat to read the actual article that had prompted the ' NO GAYS' headline. I purchased and downloaded the entire newspaper to make sure I got the full story. To read the whole thing yourself you'll have to purchase the paper, but there is a summary of the story on their webpage here. After reading the story, I was once again in shock. There was absolutely nothing said by the Scout Leader in the article that could prompt a headline of ' NO GAYS!'

It's not as if he went off on a rant against homosexuals and said never do we want anyone of 'those people' coming near our organization. What I read was nothing like that at all. There was a statement made that the Scouting movement in Barbados maintained its closed door policy against open homosexuals, but that the local organization was monitoring what was happening in the United States as petitions were being made there to change things. The discriminatory policies of the Scout movement are well known and as a member of that organisation all the leader can do is give its position whatever his personal convictions might be. I saw nothing in what I read that could be interpreted as  'Chief Scout rules out letting them join the organization.'

Recognising this inaccuracy just made the whole thing more horrible. I know that my friends in journalism will tell me that you have to editorialize. That's the way you sell newspapers, but this is going too far. The Scout leader was just stating facts, explaining the current Scouts' policy which are set internationally and have a history behind them that promotes prejudice. Thankfully people are now trying to change that. However, the Scout master can only speak to what is currently in place. In fact it sounds to me that given he is 'monitoring' what is going on in the wider world, he would acknowledge that there is a possibility that changes will have to be made in the local movement based on these developments. The Scout Leader went on to recognise that under the current regulations, atheists are also unable to join the Scouts. So indeed the headline could just have easily been 'NO ATHEISTS!'

In a way, I wish they had printed that. That would have been a great can of worms to open up and I would love to get that 'belief' debate out there in the open in Barbados. But I guess at the moment the 'Gays' are more sexy. What is happening here is that the Nation  that Published the ' Saturday Sun' is taking advantage of a prejudice that they know is present, prevalent and widespread in Barbadian and  Caribbean society. They know that many of their readers will have a positive rather than disgusted reaction to a headline like that. Many will be thinking something along the lines of the following.

'Hooray! Thank God we're keeping those gays at bay. It's a relief to know that we are not  following those North Americans who have no benchmark for morality and where absolutely anything goes.'

Just like me, these readers will see the headline without knowing what it is gays are being barred from, but they'll be happy to know that at least someone in the country has enough courage to stand up against this wayward lifestyle.

For many of us in the Caribbean, maintaining the stance against the homosexual position is a matter of national pride. It is as if we expect to be congratulated for choosing to continue to discriminate and be praised for standing in opposition to a progressive social world movement that is seeking to extend basic human rights to a marginalized group. Of course, I criticize the Nation for misrepresenting in the headline and for sensationalising at the expense of demeaning a group in Barbados and the wider world that deserves better. But the fact is that a headline like this would never appear if the national attitude was different. It wouldn't be published if the masses on the whole  decided to stand up and say we won't stand for this kind of discrimination. It wouldn't happen if the Nation thought that they would be backlash and loss of sales for being so insensitive. What is needed is for people to recognise that gay rights are human rights and treat the needs of this group with as much sensitivity as they do any of the other minority groups in Barbados. Alas, this is unlikely to happen, because in our country, the right for a person to be anti-gay appears to outstrip the right of the gay or gay advocate to push for equality.

So, life in Barbados will go on, with the homophobes cheering for a nation sticking to its anti-gay guns and a few dissenters saying that this type of treatment for people with a different sexual orientation shouldn't be. Then we'll all march forward, with the majority thinking that being anti-gay is a reasonable stance that should be respected as part of being patriotic and holding oneself to a higher standard.

Who sets that higher standard? Well, for most in Barbados and the Caribbean, that standard setter is God, the God of the bible. The one whose abominations include shell fish eating, wearing a mixture of clothing textures and trimming beards. It is the belief in that God, cherry picked as his teachings may be, who ultimately keeps a section of society from enjoying basic rights. It's not the first time that our 'Holy Book' of choice has helped us to justify denial of a human right and we can be sure that it will not be the last. If this doesn't tell us that this bronze-age book's expiry date has long past, I don't know what will.

By now, most of you know that it frustrates me no end to see our country continue to look towards Christianity to lift us up, when it so clearly continues to provide the basis for holding social development  back. But sadly we in the Caribbean continue to choose faith, prayer and religious rites over thought, reason and human rights. 

The rules that rule the ruler: The bigger the Bible the smaller the god

It's all about the tough calls. This photo on the left always gives me chills. We see Obama, Biden, Clinton and the rest of the White House staff watching anxiously to see whether the raid to get Osama Bin Laden was successful. The anniversary of this event was two weeks ago and of course it was played out in the media, with Democrats making political capital by reminding the public of this more meaningful 'mission accomplished' moment and the Republicans playing their own politics by claiming that the Democrats should not be political.

Whatever your  political leaning, you have to admit that this was a true leadership moment for Barack Obama. This is why countries have presidents, prime ministers or chancellors. It's to make difficult decisions like these. In the midst of uncertainty and ambiguity, you have to weigh up the options and make the call realising you have to live with whatever the outcome is. The advice may come to you from all directions conflicting and contradictory. History and precedent may be there as a guide, but at the end of it all the buck stops at you. Maybe due to shrewd judgement, maybe through some luck or perhaps a bit of both, Obama came out smiling at the end. You have to take risks sometimes as a leader and you deserve the accolades when it works as much as the brickbats when it goes wrong. To make the decisions when there is no clear answer. That is what a ruler does.

Fast forward to last week and the US president was back in the news again. This time the call he made was also impactful, but in an entirely different way. The president referred to his 'evolving' opinion that now is in favour of same sex marriage. This was indeed  a significant departure from the form of his previously held transitional belief. I hope creationists will now recognise that macro evolution can occur given enough time and the right political environment. To me it was a welcome evolution, but others certainly viewed this mutation as a backward step.

Huge as this statement might have seemed to many, Barack was careful to say that it was a personal opinion. It wasn't a call to go to war to kill the opposing fundamental Christian views. It  wasn't an order to surge into churches and capture clergy. Yet, the vocal response by many, suggests that some saw it just like that. It was a curious response. Surely it is what the ruler in heaven says that  will ultimately matter on issues like these.Why should they even care what Barack thinks? Are the fundamentalists telling us that  Barack Obama is like God? Not so far fetched. Seems at times they give almost as much weight to what he says as to the words of their precious saviour.

In looking at Barack Obama as a leader over the past couple of weeks, I couldn't help but think about their own ruler up in heaven and how he compares. In one sense we are told that God is like the Barack Obama who gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden. Strong and authoritative, one whose orders have to be carried out exactly as he says, one whose will cannot be resisted. Then, at other times we see their ruler like the Obama we saw giving his views on same sex marriage to the press. One who merely states an opinion and gives others free will to go along with him if they choose. He leaves others a bit lower in state to decide whether his will, will be done or not. It is the ultimate mystery surrounding their heavenly ruler, the fact that he is eternally all powerful, except of course for the times when he is not.

It turns out though that this kind of inconsistency is not the only one that the heavenly president faces. Unlike Obama, their commander-in-chief  is infallible.  His opinions don't evolve, and he has no need to wait nervously after giving a order to see if things turn out right. No, their God has no such worries, he always knows what to do and he can tell us what we should do. We just need to listen to him, follow him and all will be well. Sounds simple right? Well not quite, because it doesn't end there. This infallible God has also written a book which is of course, infallible. God is infallible, he writes a book, it has to be just as infallible as he. The logic does seem watertight but again its not that straightforward.

Let's go back to down to earth again for a moment to see how things work in our domain. We have the leader in the form of a president or prime minister who makes the important decisions. There are also laws, policies, regulations, historical precedence and a constitution that give guidance to leaders. In practice we need both the leader and the book, the ruler and the rules. The laws are good but they are not perfect, they fail sometimes because they can't foresee every situation that you might find yourself in. There are times when you just have to throw out the rule book altogether because it doesn't apply or give one rule a priority over another. That's why you need a human leader that can make that kind of judgement and steer the ship through uncertain waters, make the tough calls like going in for the Bin Laden kill.

Our rules aren't perfect but then neither are our rulers. Rules are there to keep the ruler in line. Without them leaders could do whatever they wanted with no transparency and no accountability. They would be no grounds for appealing or protesting, because they would be no yardstick by which to evaluate anything. Because of the limitations of both rulers and rules, it makes sense to have both in any system of government. If both the rules and rulers are strong, you have a recipe for good governance.

The situation is somewhat different in the heavenly realm where both ruler and rules are infallible. Here, it's not a situation of complementarity, its a situation of redundancy. Why would an infallible God have a need to write a book? He is real, people have a personal relationship with him, he can speak to hearts directly. What could possibly be expressed in the book that couldn't  be said through his own voice? There is no need for accountability or transparency because by definition God is always on the right side. The infallible God makes the book redundant. Similarly, if we have an infallible bible, there is no need for a God. The bible would speak to every circumstance, there would be nothing that would need interpretation or reasoning over it. It would just be a case of read it and do what it says. If the rules are absolutely clear and flawless you don't need a ruler to interpret them for you.

Still, Christians have a strange way of explaining how God and the bible work together. A way which makes both the Lord and his word seem to have limitations. You read the bible first and through it God himself speaks to you. He writes the words and then gives you verbal instructions while you read. This seems unnecessarily complicated. It's like a parent instructing a child by going through the process of writing  a book called 'What I maybe want you to do'  and explaining what they want done by letting the child read the book and then explaining what they actually meant to say in the book. Come on, couldn't you just explain to the kid what you want done and skip the extra literature?

Well maybe, but that's not the way God does it. The bible we are told is God's living word. I still can't wrap my head around this. The words on the pages are dead. Dead from the perspective, that once they are written they are written. They can't undergo natural selection and evolve into new species. I am sorry, I can't see how you can have a living relationship with someone, through the printed words in a book written hundreds of years ago in ancient languages. The bible can't speak to you about your life any more than the 'Nutritional Facts' on a box of cereal can speak to you about your diet. Words can't listen to you and give you advice. They can't evaluate options when you have conflicting goals to reconcile within you. Only a mind is capable of doing such things.

Not a book talk

I have been fortunate enough in the time I have been a part of the CFI community here in Calgary to hear some prominent  authors speak and give lectures on their writings. These include people like Dan Dennett,  James Randi, Lawrence Krauss and Dan Barker. All of these authors have books which represent their views and have been widely read.  When they come to speak  their focus is not on their publications it is squarely on what they are there to talk to the audience about.  Books are always there on show, but their primary purpose is to be scribbled in at the end of the night. The event doesn't start by the speaker asking everybody to open they copy of  ' A Universe from Nothing' to Chapter Three on  Page 35 and start reading together from paragraph five. It just doesn't work like that. Lecturers will speak about what their books contain but they will go further, give more context and give their current thinking and opinions on the issue. They take you beyond the book.Yes, what they will say will tend to be in line with the book, but that's because the book, just like the speech they are giving represents their thoughts. The book can be a useful aid to understanding, but you don't need to have read their work in order to understand the message of their lectures.

It's a similar thing when it comes to me on this blog. Writing articles here has helped me to organise my thoughts on many issues related to faith and atheism. Sometimes I use ideas I have expounded on  here, to explain my position to someone I am engaging with in a discussion. But it is me that is speaking to them when I am debating, not the 'caribatheist blog.'

God on the other hand, should have no need to use references as aids to himself. He doesn't need  a book to remind him what it was he was thinking when he was speaking to his chosen people two millennia ago. He doesn't need it to help himself. It isn't a requirement for communication with us. So, why is it there? But even more important than being there, why is it viewed with almost the same reverence as God? We know  that almost every argument that a theist brings to argue a point about Him begins or ends with a scripture quote.

They say that in the journey of life, the bible should be kept next to you as the manual  for driving. But why do you need to consult a manual when the manufacturer of the automobile is your copilot ready to take over if there's any trouble?

Bibles should be  just for atheists

If there is any need for the manual, it's for the person without the relationship with God. The one who can't access the master directly. To me that means the atheist, the one who has not yet found the way to tune in to God. So, my advice to Christians is to hand the manuals over. Yes, bring the bibles over to us so that we may learn something about the author of your favourite text, because he is obviously not coming over to our university to give a lecture. Yes, you go with God and leave the bibles with us. But we know you'll never do that, you and your saviour's publication must never be separated. I have to ask you again. Why?

One possible answer is that the author of the book is not around. The importance placed on the book might  well mean  that the one who wrote it is no longer here to talk to the masses and answer questions. Any insight into the words on the page would then have to come from your own reasoning and reflection, not from your personal friend outside space and time. Secondary sources like the bible are only really valuable when the primary ones are absent. Contradictory as it may sound, the existence of the bible is probably the greatest piece of evidence against the existence of God. The more that Christians lean on the bible the less they are leaning on God himself. That's why I say the bigger the bible the smaller the god.

The Bible rules

Speaking of big bibles, the book got as large as the supermoon this week, when fundamentalists bashed Obama over the head with it for forgetting that it says that for a man to lie with a man or woman to lie with a woman is an abomination. That's what happens when the bible goes ahead and God stays invisible in the background. It means we have to follow the words written down years ago by his hand, without any way of knowing if it is appropriate for what we are facing now. Once the books of the bible were made into a canon it effectively blasted God out of the picture. He became forever a slave of his text, because not even an omnipotent God can alter the words of an unchangeable book.

If I ever see God I will ask him why on earth  he chose the option of ruling by the book. A leader that needs to govern through only previously existing documents is one that is not sure of himself. It is only  forgivable if you are new to the job and don't have enough experience yet to make decisions through your own reasoning.

Wait, perhaps that's the problem!  God is feeling his way into his role, still needing to stick strictly to what the textbook says. I bet he is having difficulty understanding it just like we do. Maybe he does need the book to guide him in guiding us through on this complex planet. Maybe, he himself is on a trial, only passing down to us what has been passed down to him by someone higher up the ladder that did the hiring.

Well if that's the case, God has been on probation a long time now. I sincerely hope he gets his appointment letter soon, so that he can get on with the job he is being paid to do and put aside the training manual once and for all. I tell you, the world would definitely be the better for it.

Undue pressure on polite pig

This year there is a character trying to make his way into the hearts of children in Barbados and it's not jolly old St. Nicholas. His name is Percy; Polite Percy. Yes, the government's National Initiative for Service Excellence (NISE) in Barbados has launched this mascot as part of a promotion to encourage the nation to be more mannerly. In short, say "please" and "thank you" and keep the smiles on.

I have to say that I am all in favour of promoting good behaviour. However I had to wonder if emphasis is on the right place when I heard a discussion on television bemoaning that it is a shame that young people are using the texting shortcut" thnx" instead of spelling out the word "thanks" when they communicate. For me, service excellence is not only about saying " good morning, how are you today?" It is about giving the client or customer what they ask for as efficiently as possible. We can all attest to the fact that those automated messages that tell us how important we are, thank us continually for "holding on" and beg us to "please wait a little longer" tend to rub salt in the wound rather than cheer us up. So, hopefully NISE will look at service in a broader sense as time goes on.

Having reflected on Polite Percy as an outsider now living in Canada, it didn't surprise me that Barbadians at home also had some reservations about the program. What opened my eyes a bit though was the reasons I heard for their disapproval. It wasn't that there was too much emphasis on the cosmetic rather than getting to the root of service excellence. It wasn't that in difficult economic times government should put its emphasis on more critical programs. What I have been seeing on facebook comments and local letters to the editor is disgust that NISE chose a pig as a mascot to promote good behaviour. I must admit that this never even crossed my mind when I first heard about Percy. I thought his name was a nice alliteration and children tend to respond to those things. Still, maybe the people protesting had a point. At school if you pushed in front of the line in the canteen you were commonly called a " bore pig" and many of the bad behaved boys coming in class after running around the pasture were accused of " sweating like a pig." It's true, a pig was never something you looked to as a model of behaviour. Eventually NISE responded to the criticisms by saying that the whole point of Percy was to show that even a pig could be reformed to become polite.

I thought long and hard about the objections of the public and about the government's response. The more I reflect the more I feel that there was a great teachable moment lost here. Why do we associate a pig with bad behaviour? Is it something based in fact? They might be out there, but I have not read any comparative animal behaviour studies that suggest that pigs are any worse in their conduct than other animals. I am sure cows, goats, horses, ducks and many other farm animals can be just as feisty, especially when provoked. No, the pig association with bad behaviour is primarily cultural, a stereotype essentially. It would have been great if NISE had instead responded with something like the following:

"We know that traditionally the pig has been associated with bad behaviour in our culture. However, we should all be careful at how we put labels on categories of things, stereotyping is not a good thing. Instead of looking at Percy, let's take a look within ourselves and see whether the negative associations we make in life, often without thinking, are really fair."

I know many will think that this is taking things too far. After all, we are only talking about a pig here. I disagree, it's about mindset and of course we do exactly the same thing when it comes to humans. We have seen this "pig" come in many forms over the years, black people, women, disabled, immigrants from neighbouring countries. Percy is the latest in a long list. What do we do when one of these "pigs" defies our expectations in a positive way? We do just like what NISE did. We take the individual out of the group and say he or she is exceptional. One that has risen above the others in the herd. We exalt the individual but our prejudices regarding the group remain. It goes without saying that as a non believer I am one of those most detested "pigs." "Even an atheist can be a moral person," we have all heard it. Just like the popular " even a caveman could do it." In all these cases you excel inspite of being part of marginalised group "X." Once we keep doing this, prejudices in society in its many forms will always remain.

This week articles like this one and this one in the Barbados Nation have distressingly emphasised this point. Here, the "pig" in the crosshairs is the homosexual. All the clergy in the two articles claim with absolute certainty that homosexuality is a sickness that needs a cure, having nothing to back them up other than " My God-book tells me so."  They go on to pat themselves on the back, proclaiming they are being tolerant for wishing to help homosexuals turn from their "dirty" ways. They no doubt think gays too can become reformed like Percy and one day teach others about good behaviour; of course in this case the sexual kind.

My word to Percy, is to hang in there. I congratulate you for keeping your composure in the face of such unwarranted pig persecution from the public. If I were you I know I would be a pretty peeved Percy. As I said before I can't help you because my species is probably even more despised than yours. However maybe YOU, being a specialist in politeness, can help ME. You see, I just can't seem to find a polite way to tell the people in Barbados that the God whom they love, serve and worship is no more real than you.

Faith in God = Faith in Man

"Once you and God understand, you don't need to explain or justify anything to man!" This was the quote I read on someone's facebook status yesterday. Up to the time of writing, 13 others said they "like" this and the numbers are still rising. For me this statement, short as it is, is one of the more scary things I have read in a while. " What's the harm of belief in God?" they say. Sometimes we forget that for many believers, what man thinks is of no relevance when compared to God. The unseen far greater than the seen, the unknown greater than the known, that without evidence far greater than the thing we can observe. It may sound extreme, but this is the philosophy that can ultimately lead to people flying planes into buildings.

The first thing, of course , is that God always understands you. In my Christian days God was always a God of empathy. He was always on my side, especially if it was in a time when I felt I had been wronged. He always agreed with me when I thought I had been unfairly left out of a school team or told unjustifiably that I wasn't good enough to get the job I wanted. The more passionately I felt about an issue, the more strongly I felt that God was behind me. I often reflect that if it was something other than reason and critical thinking engaging my passion now , I would attribute the drive I feel to the divine and be convinced that I was doing God's work. Indeed, that is one of the reasons that I am an atheist today. It seems to be illogical that God would be pushing me so hard to find knowledge that continuously gives me more confidence in my conclusion that he doesn't exist. I therefore find myself forced to infer that this new mission is not coming from God at all. This means my other drives and passions in life can also be explained without God being there. So I feel justified in dismissing the presence of God I felt in the past; which often came while I was writing or speaking up for things such as racial or gender equality, human rights or sustainable development.

I suppose some Christians might say that it is the devil who is driving me now , but that would mean that it could have been the devil driving me before too. After all, the feelings I experience now are exactly the same as then. But if these Christians are right there is at least one benefit I can say that comes from being on Satan's side. He always encourages me to justify and explain to man. He is never happy with me just convincing myself and my "Lord". I have to justify and explain all my beliefs so that I can give new insight if I am right, correct myself if I am wrong and engage in a cross fertilization of ideas if I am somewhere in between. I really have faith that this is "the way." I so wish I could show this to my christian brothers and sisters, but that just doesn't seem likely to happen because in the way it is now the believer holds all the cards.

To say that once God understands you don't have to justify to man, is to say that once you feel very strongly about what you are doing you don't have to justify it to anybody. In other words, you can essentially do what ever you want. Ironically, that is exactly what the believer says the atheist is doing. Recently I have heard a lot of this idea of trusting in God rather than man. The talk comes on the heels of the pope's visit to Britain with the pedophilia hanging over his church and the homosexual charges facing Pastor Long in the USA. The followers in both cases say, that they will not put their faith in fallible men they will put their faith in the Almighty and Jesus. I always smile when I hear this, because what does it really mean to put your faith in God instead of man?

I suppose believing and trusting in God means following his example or doing what he prescribes. Sounds like good advice, but then here comes the problem. What exactly does God want? Well, many would say, it's there in the bible, the word of God. But in order to "know" the bible is the word of God we have to trust the word of the man who has told us that. Yes, what the believer calls faith is really faith in what other people have written or said about God. People do not realise that when you say God's word is perfect you are not only trusting God but every human being that has played a part in bringing that " word" to you. For the bible to be the infallible word of God, those inspired writers would have to be just as infallible as God himself. How do we know the writers were not deceived by something or someone they mistakenly thought was God? To say that we know for sure that they were not, is to say that these people had perfect judgement. Surely that would be like saying these writers are gods themselves.

If someone came to my door claiming he had a letter from my father who I regarded as perfect I would be naive to take the deliverer of the message at his word. Indeed, accepting the letter as true would be more a reflection of trust in the stranger than it would be a reflection of trust in the one who may have been the author. I mean, the stranger could have just written the letter himself in my dad's handwriting. He may have made a mistake and the letter was actually for my neighbour next door. The stranger may have taken out a page of the letter or added in a section. He may have gotten the letter from a friend and is just relaying it. In the end your failure to accept the letter in no way indicates that you have any lack of faith in your father himself. You just don't trust the people downstream in the chain.

With the bible that downstream is far more complex. You don't even have the luxury of being able to evaluate the stranger at the door, ask him for his ID or credentials or read the body language to assess whether he is telling the truth. You have to accept the word of the anonymous who lived hundreds of years before you were born, translators, editors and church leaders right down the line. You can't just reject the pastor at the end of the long chain and claim that you are putting your faith in God himself. In this case you are just transferring faith from one man to another, from the man you say you thought you knew to the men you never knew or will know. There are some Christians and other " spiritualists" who will claim their beliefs are not based on the bible at all. It is a personal experience with the divine that has made them believe, the bible only serves as confirmation. However when you dig into the stories these accounts can all be related to something out there either in the faith tradition or local culture. They may claim to see or have heard Jesus or the holy spirit or some other medium. But they interpretations of what may have been a real experience is framed in the context of the faith. A framing delicately prepared by the institution of faith which has human experience at its source. Others claim that the evidence lies in changed lives of the followers, but again they just choose to interpret this as being occasioned by their God whose description is at least partially wrapped in an existing faith tradition.

At the end of the day faith in God is equal to faith in man. The truth is we all have faith in man one way or the other, whether atheist, agnostic or fundamentalist.The difference is that the non believer freely acknowledges his trust in man. Those in faith rarely concede such, but if God exists, until he comes to us all in person and explains himself with the relevant credentials, any faith in him must be seen as based on human constructs. So when it comes to these issues, it's really hard to separate God from the pastor. From the look of things recently, it seems that it is even difficult for the pastor to differentiate between God and man. For as much as the pastor feels in his heart for his God he appears to have an abundance of love for man as well.