Every so often I feel I deserve to be taken out on the town. Maybe to a movie and dinner or just to buy something pretty. Whatever I think will make me happy. Call it a break from the mundane, if you wish. The part that makes people look at me strangely is that I tend to take myself out. Alone.
This weekend my boyfriend was working, most of my female friends have children and my sisters are thousands of miles away. So, I took myself to a movie and a nice quiet dinner at my favorite Greek restaurant. The movie: Don Jon. (Don't judge.)
You should go see it. It actually made me sit through the credits...just thinking. I won't give any spoilers but it was one of those movies that I'm sure my gender professor in college would have made us all write papers about.
Don Jon is about a guy who is so wrapped up in what he thinks of how life should be that he has lost connection with it. The more I think about the movie the more subtle hints I find. I don't feel that I'm reading too much into it, either. I've seen Joseph Gordon-Levitt speak in interviews about the film and the more he talks about it the more I discover.
Jon, the main character in Don Jon, is the typical 'guido'. He has a family he needs to impress, need to slick back his hair, go with friends to the bar to find the hottest girl to conquest for the night, sleeps with them, watches porn to feel any pleasure afterward and then needs to go to his Catholic church by Sunday morning for confession. By the end he is questioning the rules he has been following. Rules set by his family, his sex life, his friends, his girl, and his church. Rules, set by the societal norms, that have been placed on himself and even those around him.
Now, you may be wondering why I'm writing a post about my 'self-date' (and a movie supposedly about porn) on a blog geared toward a southern atheist's prospective of the world around her. It's because, by the end of my date night, I was so unbelievably happy I cried.
The movie made me think that I was once (and perhaps still am to some extent) still caught up in what my life was 'supposed' to be. My life was to go to church, grow up, get married, get a job, get pregnant and grow old teaching my kids and grand kids about my religion. There was a lot of 'get' in that last sentence. What about what I should be giving to life?
So, the more I thought about my life after my night out, the more I began to realize how lucky I am. I'm not stuck in a love-less marriage (like almost happened to me), I don't have children (which I THRILLED about), I have a good job that pays my bills. I live in a place that is so breathtakingly beautiful it brings tears to my eyes. I live in the most scientifically advanced times in our history. There is no 2nd century church doctrine holding back my life. Nor is there a tight southern-girl mentality strangling the ever-changing life out of me.
There will be more social fights ahead of me but, for right now, the life and experiences that are at my fingertips are endless. The life that I have now is mine and it's all that I have and I'm so happy that I'm young and free enough to know this about myself.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Saturday, September 14, 2013
False Profits
When I was in college I was the president of my Secular Student Alliance. I've ranted about my college group before... But my frustration with that group is not what I'm writing about today. While in college I would be in classes when I would get text messages from other SSA members or friends when a preacher would show up to campus. Depending on the professor I would be able to leave class to go to the Student Union to listen to them.
On my campus we had two different churches that would try to save us heathens. One was a Baptist church that would send a member who happened to have a strong voice and nerve. This man's name was 'Kevin'. Kevin was a nice enough guy. He and I exchanged e-mails and he would give me advance warning when he would come around. I can only assume that he did this hoping we would hold a counter protest to gather people and ultimately give him a larger audience. We rarely rose to that occasion.
The other was a Pentecostal church. This church would come with a number of members, children included, with very large signs declaring who all was going to be going to hell. On this list were thieves, liars, fornicators, potty-mouths (really?), Catholics, Mormons, homosexuals, lesbians (b/c they are somehow different than homos?), and, of course, atheists. We didn't need to hold a counter protest. The other students on campus would do that for us.
Now, most atheists are not too concerned about people like this. We're told we are going to hell many times. I have been called every foul name one can think of when thinking of people who don't believe in gods. It's hard to threaten an atheist with hell. It's like threatening adults with no Christmas presents from Santa. He doesn't exist so I'm not afraid of Santa Clause. Or your particular god.
But, the thing about the Pentecostal church is that, because they had such an extensive list of who was going to hell, many of the other students became offended when they would come to campus. A catholic friend of mine became so upset he called them Bible-thumpers and wanted to know where he could find a dart gun and some tranquilizers. I giggled at that a bit. I had to tell him that atheists get this type of treatment frequently.
I felt bad for the guy but he was kinda getting a taste of his own medicine. When he found out that I was an atheist he looked at me like I had grown a second head. He asked if I was afraid of hell. He asked why I was angry at god. He told me I was lost, blind and that one day, one day, I will open my eyes again. He was basically doing what the Pentecostal church was doing, just in a quieter, less aggressive way.
A public university has to give groups the ability to use the property for their functions when they properly state their purpose and give notice to the school. The school needs to approve their application to use the space. But, after that, they have the right to be there. The student who pays to go there must now deal with them. That is where this becomes a problem.
Another friend, my old roommate, "Kelly", called me asking what the school's policy was on visitors assaulting students. Of course, I was alarmed. Turns out, Kelly was walking past the group of religious zealots wearing a sleeveless shirt. It was summer in Louisiana after all. She was called a whore by one of the church members. Kelly was in no way involved with this group, she was not standing to listen to them, she was not engaging with them at all. She was just walking from one class to another. And this gave them enough opportunity to call her a whore. Kelly was, understandably, upset by this and went to the student affairs office to file a complaint. She was met with the student affairs VP who told her that if she would just not engage with the group than things like this would not happen.
I'm not sure what I'm more upset about. The fact that this church is so brave as to judge others or the fact that my alma mater brushes off assaults like this. If they brush off verbal assault what do they do for physical assault? Do they assume that the person assaulted was in they wrong in the first place? That they somehow 'asked' for the assault? That is for another blog, I guess.
But, I guess my real question is this: why do we give religious fanatics like this the time of day? Why do we listen to groups like the WBC, this Pentecostal church, Ray Comfort (the banana man), or Pat Robinson? The more we play their movies, go to their websites, talk about them, or protest their presence are we giving them audience they crave? Are we giving them credentials? Ray Comfort raves on and on about how Richard Dawkins will not debate him. He says it's because Prof. Dawkins is scared of his truth. But I think that Dawkins has the right idea about people like him. He will not give Comfort the satisfaction of adding Dawkin's name to his resume.
My problem now is that I understand ignoring these people who are looking for attention. But, if we ignore a problem, doesn't it become worse?
On my campus we had two different churches that would try to save us heathens. One was a Baptist church that would send a member who happened to have a strong voice and nerve. This man's name was 'Kevin'. Kevin was a nice enough guy. He and I exchanged e-mails and he would give me advance warning when he would come around. I can only assume that he did this hoping we would hold a counter protest to gather people and ultimately give him a larger audience. We rarely rose to that occasion.
The other was a Pentecostal church. This church would come with a number of members, children included, with very large signs declaring who all was going to be going to hell. On this list were thieves, liars, fornicators, potty-mouths (really?), Catholics, Mormons, homosexuals, lesbians (b/c they are somehow different than homos?), and, of course, atheists. We didn't need to hold a counter protest. The other students on campus would do that for us.
Now, most atheists are not too concerned about people like this. We're told we are going to hell many times. I have been called every foul name one can think of when thinking of people who don't believe in gods. It's hard to threaten an atheist with hell. It's like threatening adults with no Christmas presents from Santa. He doesn't exist so I'm not afraid of Santa Clause. Or your particular god.
But, the thing about the Pentecostal church is that, because they had such an extensive list of who was going to hell, many of the other students became offended when they would come to campus. A catholic friend of mine became so upset he called them Bible-thumpers and wanted to know where he could find a dart gun and some tranquilizers. I giggled at that a bit. I had to tell him that atheists get this type of treatment frequently.
I felt bad for the guy but he was kinda getting a taste of his own medicine. When he found out that I was an atheist he looked at me like I had grown a second head. He asked if I was afraid of hell. He asked why I was angry at god. He told me I was lost, blind and that one day, one day, I will open my eyes again. He was basically doing what the Pentecostal church was doing, just in a quieter, less aggressive way.
A public university has to give groups the ability to use the property for their functions when they properly state their purpose and give notice to the school. The school needs to approve their application to use the space. But, after that, they have the right to be there. The student who pays to go there must now deal with them. That is where this becomes a problem.
Another friend, my old roommate, "Kelly", called me asking what the school's policy was on visitors assaulting students. Of course, I was alarmed. Turns out, Kelly was walking past the group of religious zealots wearing a sleeveless shirt. It was summer in Louisiana after all. She was called a whore by one of the church members. Kelly was in no way involved with this group, she was not standing to listen to them, she was not engaging with them at all. She was just walking from one class to another. And this gave them enough opportunity to call her a whore. Kelly was, understandably, upset by this and went to the student affairs office to file a complaint. She was met with the student affairs VP who told her that if she would just not engage with the group than things like this would not happen.
I'm not sure what I'm more upset about. The fact that this church is so brave as to judge others or the fact that my alma mater brushes off assaults like this. If they brush off verbal assault what do they do for physical assault? Do they assume that the person assaulted was in they wrong in the first place? That they somehow 'asked' for the assault? That is for another blog, I guess.
But, I guess my real question is this: why do we give religious fanatics like this the time of day? Why do we listen to groups like the WBC, this Pentecostal church, Ray Comfort (the banana man), or Pat Robinson? The more we play their movies, go to their websites, talk about them, or protest their presence are we giving them audience they crave? Are we giving them credentials? Ray Comfort raves on and on about how Richard Dawkins will not debate him. He says it's because Prof. Dawkins is scared of his truth. But I think that Dawkins has the right idea about people like him. He will not give Comfort the satisfaction of adding Dawkin's name to his resume.
My problem now is that I understand ignoring these people who are looking for attention. But, if we ignore a problem, doesn't it become worse?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)