CECILY. I have never met any really wicked person before. I feel rather frightened. I am so afraid he will look just like every one else.
[Enter Algernon, very gay and debonair.] He does!
[The Importance of Being Earnest, Oscar Wilde]
We live in interesting times, don't we? It has been entertaining to watch the fuss over Pope Leo's opposition to war and the MAGA Right's fury over it, with JD Vance (a Roman Catholic convert) and other Trump toadies joining Trump in his outrage at Leo. It's been less entertaining to see various non-MAGA non-Catholics cheering Leo on, expressing their outrage that anyone should dare to oppose the Holy Father.
Then, during the night, Trump posted another incoherent rant against Leo on his social media platform, adding an AI-generated image of himself in conventional Jesus robes, laying hands on a sick bedridden man who could be Uncle Sam or possibly Jeffrey Epstein. Someone deleted the image soon afterward, but by then it had been copied and gone viral. Trump later told reporters that he thought the image showed him as a doctor, and he was paying tribute to the Red Cross.
Naturally, many in Trump's base rallied to defend him, saying that obviously the image didn't depict him as Jesus, but it seems that he'd finally managed to upset a good number of his fans. The word "blasphemy" was flung around. Trump's advisor Laura Loomer pointed out correctly that the US doesn't have blasphemy laws, advising Trump's critics to move to an Islamic country where the charge would have legal consequences. Nice try, but numerous Christian countries also have laws against blasphemy.
Still, it's been weird watching religious liberals and even atheists, like Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta, in a snit over Trump's "blasphemy." It doesn't seem that they're just pointing out Trump's hypocrisy. Many of them seem to be sincerely outraged by his cloaking himself in religious imagery, as they are by his daring to speak harshly to the leader of a billion Catholics.
I approve of Leo's stance in this case, but since he's still the head of an antigay hate group, it's not because I recognize his moral authority. This declaration of his, for example, is as laughable as anything Trump has spewed online:
Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood" (Is 1:15).
(Offer not good during the Crusades, the Spanish Armada sailing to England, or the Spanish invasion of the New World.)
I also support Leo's refusal to be cowed by Trump's ranting against him. He's one of the few European heads of state who hasn't tried to make nice with Trump, hasn't offered him a shiny gold trinket to appease him.
Anybody has the right to disagree with, criticize, or protest a Pope or a President. It's depressing, indeed infuriating, to see so many people who aren't Catholic or even theists demanding that Trump respect the Pontiff's autoritah. I must say, though, I wonder what is going through Melania Trump's mind today. She's a Catholic, though she married Trump in an Episcopal ceremony. Coming so soon after her tirade against Jeffrey Epstein, today's circus must be putting some strain on her determination to stand by her man.
Hemant Mehta, the self-styled Friendly Atheist, has never impressed me. He provides a useful service by tracking the Christian Right in his videos and blog posts, but it's hard to get a handle on his own politics.
In this video he reports on a youth minister-cum-junior high school basketball coach in Arkansas who told his church about the time he sowed the gospel to a student in the school library. Someone apparently leaked a video of his performance to Mehta.
We had a student in our middle school library this last week and I overheard this and so I just jumped in. I was like, I don't really care, you can fire me. I don't care. Right. Where's Todd? He's on the school board. Make sure it doesn't happen. Um, but this girl was asking Miss Cheney. She's like, 'Hey, I'm looking for like a book. Uh, it's got mystery and suspense." And so I was like, "I got you, sister." And I said, "Are you looking for something that's romantic, something that has suspense, thrilling? There is some murders in there. There's redemption, and there's a hero." And she said, "Where do I find it?" Sits right over there. It's the Bible. And then I just walked out. And I was like, I just teed off on that one, you know, and I was like, "Thanks, Miss Cheney, I'm so thankful." Um, but right, seriously, like like God just provided that opportunity and I know the girl, but I mean I was like, "Are you kidding me? Yeah. Like if you're looking for a book, I can show you one, right?" And so I just want to encourage you. And are they always that easy? Not necessarily, right? But I do want to encourage you. The opportunities are there all the time.
Mehta then goes on a rant:
Hey kids, if you want to read a book with genocide and incest, have I got the recommendations for you? What the hell is he doing? Let the librarian handle that one. That is not an opportunity that you need to tee off on. Like, no. No. And don't encourage other people to take that opportunity. No, that's not the proper time or place for that.
On the whole I agree with him - yes, the guy should keep his jobs separate - but one reason I included Mehta's video here was to let readers see his own tone and body language. I think he sounds just like the Christian-right censors he usually opposes: The Bible has genocide and incest! It's filth! Don't expose our innocent children to it! I suspect that the kind of books the girl was looking for include some objectionable material too - if they haven't already been purged from the school library by adults who just want to protect kids. I mean, I'm all for freedom of speech too, but next these Christians will have Our Children reading Shakespeare, the Iliad, Oedipus Rex and other Greek tragedies, Lord of the Flies, Maus, The Diary of Anne Frank, Twilight, and who knows what other obscenities? I'd like to think that Mehta was deliberately parodying the style, but I can't see that here. Even the sanitized retellings of Greek mythology I read as a kid in the Fifties included gory details such as Odysseus blinding the Cyclops with a burnt log and Procrustes torturing travelers to make them fit his guest bed. These were available in the elementary school library, yet I seem to have survived.
Mehta goes on to ask if Logan McCourtney, the youth pastor and coach, tries to impose his cult on his junior high school basketball players:
But I do wonder if this guy's doing this to a random girl in the library. He said he knows her. Whatever. If he's doing this in the library, what is he doing as the junior high basketball coach? Is he telling them to pray before games? Is he pushing his religion on those kids? Because we know what happened in the library cuz he bragged about it. We don't know what's happening when he's getting this team ready in a practice.
Fair questions, and someone connected to that school should ask them. But you know, I'm not sure we do know what happened in the library. We have only McCourtney's account, and braggarts shouldn't be taken too seriously whether they're secular or sacred. Since he's a preacher, it's even more reasonable to suspect he's exaggerating; he might have made the whole thing up so he could puff up his chest and boast of his devotion to the Lord. He dares the woke atheists to try to fire him (from the safety of a stage where they wouldn't hear him)! He has a buddy on the school board! Again, watch the clip: this is a stand-up comic at work, though there's not much daylight between a stand-up comic and a preacher. If Mehta had talked to the girl or the librarian involved, it would be different, but it's odd for him to take the guy at his word.
Even if McCourtney's account is accurate, we also don't know what happened next, what the girl thought, what the librarian said to her. As McCourtney tells it, he made a lightning intervention and got the hell out of Dodge. The girl might have rolled her eyes and said Geeyyyyy; the librarian might have rolled her eyes, told her not to be bothered, and made some helpful suggestions. It would be different if McCourtney were her teacher or, goddess forbid, her coach, but he isn't. Junior high students are already capable of independent thought, and we liberalswant them to be exposed to possibly discomforting literature and ideas, even in class. Don't we?
Mehta titled his video "A junior high basketball coach bragged at church about pushing the Bible on a kid." I didn't think so right away, but after watching the video and reading the comments on it, I think "pushing" is an exaggeration. Again, it's the kind of exaggeration I associate with Christian bigots (Woke teachers and librarians are pushing the trans agenda on our children!). I'd already noticed this in comments on other videos and elsewhere, but a significant number of liberals consider any public advocacy of religion, whether directed at them personally or not, as 'having religion forced on them.' (The same goes for booksellers offering recommendations online: that, to some people, constitutes refusing to sell any books they don't recommend.) Amusingly, they think that Jesus didn't go around pushing his beliefs on others, though that is exactly what he did according to the gospels, and he ordered his disciples to do the same. (I've seen similar claims made of the Buddha; sorry, children, but Buddhism is also a missionary, proselytizing religion.)
Some of these people had strict religious upbringings, which did involve forcing religion on them. I sympathize with them and understand why encountering missionaries makes them uncomfortable, but they are adults now, they often claim that they have left it behind and now think for themselves, and so on. Like it or not, and they don't, they live in a country with constitutionally protected freedom of speech and freedom of religion. That means that adults have a right to try to persuade other adults, even to convert them; it also means that they have the right to tell missionaries to take a hike, or to argue with them and try to persuade them to give up their religious beliefs. (Even more ostensibly open-minded Christians don't like that.) Schools are different in degree, which is exactly what the struggle over library censorship is about; where to draw the line is always up for negotiation, not only on religion but on history, sex education, "race," and other issues. Adults want to "protect" children, but they also want to control them. (You say "tomato," I say "tomahto.") As students get older, the more discomfort they should be exposed to. As the educator Deborah Meier wrote:
There are plenty of liberal-minded citizens who are uncomfortable with Central Park East's stress on open intellectual inquiry and would have us leave young minds free of uncertainties and openness until "later on" when they are "more prepared to face complexity." First, some argue, "fill the vessel" with neutral information and easily remembered and uplifting stories. But such compromises will neither satisfy the Right nor prepare our children's minds for "later." *
It was funny at first to watch liberals and the Right switch sides on "discomfort." First Culture-of-Therapy liberals declared that no one should ever be made to feel uncomfortable; then they declared that if you're not feeling uncomfortable (mostly but not always about American history) then you're doing it wrong. Then the Right decided that no one should be made to feel uncomfortable about American history. But it's not really funny, because there are serious real-world consequences in these disagreements.
One especially telling comment under Mehta's video was this one (all punctuation sic):
"Free will is gods greatest gift" "Really then why do you all always want to take it away from people?"
A fair question, but in context the writer seems to think that simply declaring one's beliefs, or trying to persuade someone else to adopt them, is trying to take away their free will. It isn't. It's essential in a free society. I understand why many people want to take away that freedom, but they mustn't be allowed to do it. I think one problem is that they never learned to say "No, thank you" to such people. It's not surprising, because school is largely based on the assumption that saying "No" is intolerable disobedience; at some indefinite point adults are supposed to learn otherwise, but that point never arrives. Just this week I read another Miss Manners column where she explained that it is permissible simply to turn down unwanted or inconvenient invitations; "No thank you," amplified as "I'm so sorry, I can't," is all that needs to be said. (It's a mistake to invent excuses, which will encourage attempts to persuade you.) The other night a couple of Mormon elders knocked at my door; I said "No thank you," and they gave up gracefully. Not all missionaries are so agreeable, but they can be resisted and dismissed.)
It's good that Hemant Mehta objected to this pastor-coach's obnoxious conduct. But what does he want to protect children from? Does he want them to learn to think for themselves in a messy world? Or does he think it's enough if adults like him keep away any ideas that might make them uncomfortable?
-------------
* The Power of Their Ideas, Beacon Press, 2002, page 81.
Hemant Mehta, who goes by the alias "Friendly Atheist," has a YouTube channel on which he reports on religious overreach in the US, mostly by Christian reactionaries, which he deplores with the kind of scandalized relish that I associate with Christian reactionaries, though liberals love it too. I've been aware of him for a long time, but only started noticing his videos in the past couple of months.
A day ago he posted this video about a 26-year-old Christian youth pastor who decided that God wanted him joined in marriage to a fourteen-year-old girl. This was in the mid-1990s. His church and the girl's parents accepted his claim, though they insisted on its being only a "betrothal" until she was older. He then initiated sexual contact with her. In 1998 he fled to Australia before he could be charged, but last year Interpol blocked him from entering the Philippines and he was returned to the US and to jail in Pennsylvania, where he was held without bail as a flight risk. He's now 55. This month he accepted a deal to plead guilty to felony charges; he will serve six to twelve years in prison, followed by several more years of probation, and he will be registered for life as a sex offender.
It's hard to call this outcome good, because of the original situation and the long delay in catching the man. The victim, who's been in touch with Mehta, is more or less satisfied, though of course she wishes her abuser had been caught sooner, but thanks to the plea deal she was spared having to confront him in court. She points out there have been changes in American society, including in organized Christianity, regarding abuse of power by authority figures in and out of the churches. Their expectation of protection and immunity has been eroded considerably, but new cases continue to emerge, so we have a long way to go still. It surprises me that churches should have any prestige or authority anymore, given their exposure as institutions that enabled and protected the mistreatment of their own members for so long.
I read the comments on the video with interest. Certain themes and slogans recurred, such as that people should not get their morality from books but rather from their inner feelings and hearts. I asked where they thought the "books" got their contents? So far I haven't gotten an answer, though a few people liked my comments. This is the familiar belief that religion is something external to human beings, rather than something we invented. If bad stuff is in the Bible, it's because people put it there. This should be obvious, a truism, in an atheist forum, but once again it seems not to be. It's certain that the oppression of women predates the Bible, and existed outside the cultures that produced it. I keep having to point out that most religions have not relied on sacred writings; yet their treatment of women wasn't better than what the Bible prescribes.
I noticed a number of comments on the video that consisted of one word, gross, sometimes in all-caps. I suppose they were sincerely looking into their hearts, but although gross isn't a moral principle but an aesthetic one, Mehta and his liberal fans wouldn't want to rely on it much. Many actions and practices have been judged immoral because they're gross: anal sex, for one; vaginal sex, for another. Bodies are gross, especially female ones with their monthly bleeding. Heart surgery is gross. Childbirth is gross, as shown by the number of people (not all of them men) who have run gagging from films or the reality of birth. Nudity is gross, especially male nudity. "Interracial" sex has been judged gross. Abortion is gross, as is all non-reproductive sexual activity. And so on; the list could continue forever. I think there are better reasons to object to the youth pastor's actions than their grossness.
If you don't want to admit that the sexual morality of the Bible (to
keep it simple I'll leave out the rest of the world) is the result of
people looking into their hearts, very well. (I should have said
"moralities," because the Bible isn't consistent in its moral teachings,
including those on sexuality.) You still have to explain the tenacity
with which many people today cling to male supremacy; as I've argued
before, that includes male scientists and secular philosophers. And if you want to have a set of moral principles that apply to everyone, as opposed to individuals' personal likes and dislikes, you have to be able to discuss them, to argue with people who disagree with you. Morality isn't just a question of what feels right to you, it's about what happens when people come into conflict. That hasn't occurred to Hemant Mehta's commenters, from what I see, nor to many atheists or other unbelievers.
One commenter tried to answer me by concocting a little story about two cavemen who, after bashing each other on the head, realized that it was in their best interest to stop bashing each other on the head, and voila! there's morality that didn't come from a book. What he had to offer was a myth (in the sense of a just-so story that purports to explain the way things are), not an argument; nor was it about morality. Modern religious reactionaries accept religious toleration on the same prudential grounds, but they still consider competing sects to be immoral, and they would suppress them if they could. Nice try, but no cigar.
The public library in the nearest, mid-sized city asked for input on its Facebook page last fall on what sorts of public programs it might organize and sponsor. I wrote that I would like a group that would discuss morality and ethics from an atheist viewpoint, reading and discussing serious writing on the subject. The comments I got were interesting. Someone told me about an atheists' advocacy and educational organization that covers northern Indiana. I looked it up on the web and it looked worthwhile (unfortunately I don't own a car and couldn't go to their meetings), but it doesn't seem to include exploratory programs about unsettled questions like morality and ethics. When I said so, several people mocked the idea that such questions even need to be asked: everybody knows what's right and wrong!
Well, no, everybody doesn't know. When I was much younger, I looked for and found books about non-religious philosophy and sexuality. Books published before around 1970 simply assumed that homosexuality was a bad thing - but a sickness that could be treated, not a sin. There were some dissenters about that, but not many published books saying so. It was the post-Stonewall gay movement that pushed secular philosophy and medicine away from complacent, unquestioning heterosexual supremacy. The same was true of second-wave feminism. Both movements had to grapple with religious bigotry, but secular authorities were also our targets. We won some victories sooner and more easily than we'd anticipated, but resistance hasn't died out yet.
When other atheists have written about morality on a non-academic level, they tend to fall back on handwaving like "Be good for goodness sake!" which ought to be embarrassing. Luckily for them, their religious opposite numbers don't do any better. And it's not like I have the answers. What I mainly have are questions. The writings on moral philosophy I've read indicate that even the best thinkers are in the same boat. I think we'd be better off if more people were aware of the complexity of the questions they brush away so lightly.
