This Election Cycle, Minorities Are Stuck Between Two Idealisms

5713009756_2fe2d1da71_o
Photo Credit Below
“When exactly was America great?” John Green has said it, President Obama has said it (to whatever degree he is allowed to say things) and even I have said it. This attacks the fundamental notion of Trump’s campaign: the idea that there exists in America, a kernel of the past unblemished by inequality or racism or sexism, and seeks to say that his nostalgia constitutes a clear and present danger for the many problems we face today that will be swept under the rug, yearning for a past that never actually existed.

This time around, though, he’s not the only one with a problem.

Right now, minorities are stuck in a chasm between two idealisms.

On the one hand, they’ve already become accustomed to the dog-whistling and even blatant alienation of the right, which has appeared to do everything it can to get less and less people to think, “I want to sign up for that.” The right has also done an excellent job of ascribing to an intensely specific version of the past that does not reflect the totality of it, and actively desires to transport us all back there, which they might not try to do if they fully understood that it’s not a place to which many minorities would like to return.

On the other hand are the liberals.

For liberals, the problem with conservatives, they say, is that they refuse to accept things as they are, blinded by the allure of the past. Their refusal to live in the present represents a stubbornness that liberals can’t wrap their minds around. What goes unnoticed is that liberals’ insistence on living in the future also poses a danger to minority communities.

Right now, minorities are stuck in a chasm between two idealisms.

Liberals often lambaste conservatives for this kind of hyper-nostalgia that comes from thinking that the 1950s were a time of greatness to which we need to return, but are often guilty of the same thing when mistaking the future that they idolize for the realities that are.

The conservatives are stuck in the past. The liberals are stuck in the future. The minorities are stuck in the present.

5274270428_9abc0305bf_o
This problem spans at least three movies.
Michelangelo Signorile recently made an appearance on the Daily show that highlights the dangers of liberalism. The danger is that, being liberal and progressive people can cause you to think that change has occurred even when it has not, simply because you wish it very much to be the case. Many liberals are unaware of how many laws are on the books regarding hiring and firing processes for LGBT people, or they are unaware that the fight for LGBT rights didn’t end with a Supreme Court decision.

Once again, being stuck in the future and practicing utopic thinking can lead to a severe lack of engagement on social issues that liberals care about. It’s the difference between thinking that Roe. V. Wade was the end of the battle and remaining engaged enough to fight every single conservative legislature and demagogue that makes abortion today technically legal, but impossible to get.

It’s the kind of lack of engagement that can lead to the disastrous midterm elections of 2010, where only 12% of youth and minorities voted, feeling that a victory had been won for them in 2008, while older, whiter voters rushed to the polls, “cranky about how ‘tall’ the president was.”, and instituted a political gridlock that made it vexingly difficult for President Obama to do anything at all.

And engagement is not the only area where the problems of liberal future-pressing are made manifest.

Let The Adults Drive

Often, in their push to create a more just society, liberals are guilty of devising a political revolution to which minorities are essential in supporting, but when it comes to structuring that revolution or being “in the room where it happens,” minorities consistently get the short end of the stick.

It’s the difference between thinking that Roe. V. Wade was the end of the battle and remaining engaged enough to fight every single conservative legislature and demagogue that makes abortion technically legal, but impossible to get.

Consider that blacks and Hispanics have already been told this election cycle that they are voting against their best interests by their strong support of Hillary Clinton. But in the gallons of articles about these issues, is there ever a sense of introspection at the infantilization necessary to tell people that they don’t know what is good for them?

– Is there ever any question of precisely why blacks do not feel that Bernie Sanders would be the best bet for them?

– Is there ever any questioning of Hillary’s decisive win in Puerto Rico, full as it is of people that are routinely disenfranchised from the political system and process?

– Is it always viewed as an insulting statistic to ask the question of why Sanders’s wins did not span a more diverse demographic range?

To me, this suggests a fundamental misconception among liberals: minorities like blacks, who vote reliably Democratic, are needed for support, not input. This again creates a dynamic of blacks sitting in the background while the adults make the decisions. For the conservatives, it’s “We don’t want you.” For the liberals it’s, “We want you…to get on board.” I understand that not breaking into that particular voting bloc was disappointing for Sanders supporters, but you’ve got to come up with an answer that’s less insulting than “They don’t know what’s good for them.”

Where does that really leave minorities?

Identity Politics and Economic Policies


24243535629_1e00da329b_o

Another troubling aspect of the Sanders campaign is the outright rejection of the validity of identity politics. I’ve heard many liberals, including Senator Sanders himself, brusquely shove identity politics to the side, saying things to the effect of, “Well, when you fix the economic disadvantages, the racism goes away.” And that is simply not true. Economics are certainly a part of the black struggle, but it’s not as if blacks who aren’t poor don’t experience their fair share of racism. Has Barack Obama not experienced extreme racism, even as a laureate of Harvard, one of the most prestigious colleges in the nation? I’m listening.

The reason Barack Obama still experiences a startling amount of racism is that it is simply not a construct reserved solely for blacks shackled by the manacles of low socioeconomic status. The problems of racism and prejudice are not purely economic, and therefore cannot be mended tangentially. Rejecting identity politics out of hand is probably a good way to not speak to the concerns that many minority groups have, including Hispanics, blacks, and the LGBT community.

Economics are certainly a part of the black struggle, but it’s not as if blacks who aren’t poor don’t experience their fair share of racism.

Simply because they are not affected by economic setbacks, as Barack Obama is not, that simply does not magically solve the particular problems of unity, diversity, and racism, in the same way that 60% support for gay marriage doesn’t mean that 30% of those people don’t still feel uncomfortable with same sex PDA.

However, rather than connecting with the concerns, liberals have gone a different way, and decided, like Bernie Sanders, that the South’s votes don’t matter because “it’s the most conservative part of the country,” or that Planned Parenthood (who does great work in minority communities that desperately need it) and its endorsement of Hillary Clinton constitutes “the establishment.”

Rather than thinking there were legitimate reasons that minority voters didn’t want Sanders to be their president, liberals opted for the insulting fantasy that Hillary must’ve just rigged the election, because “Well, I know what’s good for black voters, and it’s Bernie, so she must’ve cheated or tricked them.”

To me, this suggests a fundamental misconception from liberals: minorities like blacks, who vote reliably Democratic, are needed for support, not input.

Another reason that Bernie’s campaign may have failed to strike a winning chord with the black community is that one of the chief identifiers of the communal black struggle/experience is endurance, not idealism. Mothers resolutely praying for the safety of their children, Negro spirituals that sing about the struggle, the grind, the endurance of cyclical, everyday violence, and the slow, step-by-step march towards freedom that every generation gives its energy to for the next – these features dominate the black story.

How then, do you pitch idealism to these people, and wonder why it doesn’t appeal to them as much as an approach that is billed as thoughtful, pragmatic, and consistent?

Trickle Down Revolution


16011471099_38224e9a79_o

The last point I’d like to make is that liberals have much to say about the pure applesauce of trickle-down economics, but not a lot to say about the blind spots necessary to believe in trickle-down revolution. Any kind of theory that puts forth the idea that the specific problems of unity, racial division, and minority communities in this country can just be solved by another problem means that once again, minority interests get trampled by the white people who know what’s really best for them.

It’s just like the problems that communities (the LGBT community, the feminist community, and the atheistic community, for example) faced when they realized that there were persistent problems of race and diversity that were not addressed and did not simply go away with revolutionary change for the whole. So you still have the world’s most famous atheists being 4 white dudes, white feminism, gay white men still getting gobs more representation than anyone else also emblematic of the gay community, bisexual people treated as if they don’t even exist, and Caitlyn Jenner somehow being the “face of the trans community” despite being straight trash as a person.

Liberals have a lot to say about the pure applesauce of trickle-down economics, but not a lot to say about the blind spots necessary to believe in trickle-down revolution.

The minorities in these communities often did not find that revolution trickled all the way down to them, and therefore there was no reason for them to expect that Sanders’s revolution would trickle down to them, either, or that they should prefer his revolution to the slow, steady, and pragmatic grind that Clinton represents that is much more characteristic of the historical and present narrative of how these communities took a seat at the table for themselves in the first place.

Unity


M, ó(#¿³„-Fµª›W ¶q@)z¹ 6($·ê¤cËÐÓú¦Ûwh ÛjK!ô-.ÕTh A©Æ«Î(9“YŒzŠzŽ¸6ûP ’ÜÞ#3fOY·K7-¼•õ€9¸ŠA‘ÍÁŒ7bHé«;ЁͺÏÂ9š–ØgŒâƒ>¸Ðn´û††á qÈ ë5ºãµö­ÉwÔٗ± ÿÐó=ýÐysA°ô¿Eoˆn‹ÓŽ( êý-à,T/WP0¶º1zÂf‘ ÜÇ°==ÓVØ[M÷g•‡8üûÐhºqvB[Ú¬Áx!qŸ­…Ó½/jŒ²Íùv¬›Fãõí@ÂúUªG¾I+Ý<{g½{

As we wrap up the primary process, it is apparent who minority voters have chosen as the candidate that would best serve their interests. They are attempting to deftly straddle the dangerous nostalgia of the right as well as the demoralizing naiveté and utopic thinking of the left. Because we have problems to solve today, and a step forward is a step forward.

Perhaps it is up to us to get behind them as we always insist we are, rather than their job to get behind the plan that we’ve devised, if we have any interest in listening to what they have to say, instead of simply getting them in line. We might find that, in doing so, we will gain a better understanding of the biases and prejudices that run rampant throughout our whole country, not simply one particular party, and discover the true power of unity, not the false pretenses of unity that create chasms such as these at crossroads such as this.

Feel free to comment, like, share, and follow below!

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

1. Photo: https://goo.gl/InbJN3
Photographer: Chris Lee
License: https://goo.gl/VAhsB

2. Photo: https://goo.gl/sfHZg1
Photographer: renatodantasc
License: https://goo.gl/OOAQfn

3. Photo: https://goo.gl/tnHX69
Photographer: Alex Hanson
License: https://goo.gl/sZ7V7x

4. Photo: https://goo.gl/50LSBj
Photographer: Kamil Porimbinski
License: https://goo.gl/OOAQfn

5. Photo: https://goo.gl/R37ug3
Photographer: Z S
License: https://goo.gl/sZ7V7x

Advertisements

The Idea of Salvation Reduces Responsibility

IMG_0472

I believe that humans beings want to do the right thing. Even in a world full of ISIS and Mike Huckabee, I think that, in general, people would like to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, many Christians would not agree with me on this core point.

It’s a strange thought, especially when surrounded by people who seem to prove the contrary every day. But it’s a good thought, and I apply it as broadly as possible, because I think that it’s true.

I remember going to college, where tuition costs rose every single year thousands of dollars, and the bookstore robbed us of all the money we had to sign up at the financial aid office to get. On our conservative Christian campus, gay students had to lay down low in many senses, worship was mandatory, and some of the buildings looked quite a bit nicer than the others.

But I never thought that the administration was evil.

I never thought that President Andreasen fantasized about ways to increase my tuition and bring me to financial ruin. I never thought that his driving purpose was screwing the average Andrews student more today than he had the day before.

It doesn’t work like that. People don’t work like that.

I also feel the same about Presidents. I don’t think Obama wakes up in the morning maniacally evil, and I don’t think George Bush did, either. And it all comes back to one of my core truths.

People want to do the right thing.

The Justification of Salvation

Human beings want to be justified. The story of salvation is that one day, we’ll finally KNOW whether or not what we did was right, and I just don’t think that’s the way it works. I don’t think we get a nice summary of how this went down. I think that rejects the ambiguity that is the truth of the human experience/condition, which is that each of us does our best, based on a number of factors, to do what we think is best, but in the end we don’t know. So often, and by “so often” I mean “basically every time we’re forced to make a choice”, we are forced to make it with all available knowledge, and absent of factors and options we cannot currently see.

It’s a strange thought, especially when surrounded by people who seem to prove the contrary every day.

And we just have to do things anyway. At the end of the day, we have to be comfortable saying, “This is who I am. These are the decisions I’ve made.” And I think that the idea of God telling us we’re right or wrong at the end of time eases that responsibility, takes the weight off of the depth of the choices we have to make in the dark, and lessens the duty that we have to think carefully about whether we’re right now.

Feel free to comment, like, share, and follow below! If you appreciated this blog, become my Patron!

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

“Why Do You Even Read Harry Potter If You Don’t Even Believe In Him?”

Sounds kind of ridiculous, right? Is believing that Harry Potter is a real person or that any of the events that occur inside the series are real a prerequisite for reading or enjoying the book?

IMG_2301

Christianity is famous for its all-or-nothing kind of mentality. I’ve written posts about the need to “Jesus” a little bit harder, and how that mentality of never really doing it hard enough or never being Christian enough can really eat away at you after a while.

And that all-or-nothing verve can be a great attitude when it comes to sports or getting tickets for The Force Awakens, but when it comes into the realm of beliefs, it can be a bit tricky. In the world that we live in, if you do not adapt, you will die, and ideas are no different. Ideological flexibility allows us to get along with our neighbors, combat cognitive dissonance, and just know what we don’t know in general.

Which is what confuses me about many people who believe in the Bible. One, I’m not even sure what “believe in the Bible” really means. There is an entire set of assumptions in that statement, and given the incredible amount of diversity in Christian belief, I’m never sure which one applies. And two, I’m never sure about what assumptions are tied to the fact that I don’t believe it’s true. Let me give you scenario.

Why do you even read Harry Potter if you don’t believe in him?

Sounds kind of ridiculous, right? Is believing that Harry Potter is a real person or that any of the events that occur inside the series are real a prerequisite for reading or enjoying the book? I sure hope not. Even if I don’t think Harry rose from the dead to save us all or rode a dragon out of Gringotts, I think I can still say I love that guy.

The point is that an atheist is a person who doesn’t think that God is real, but when Jesus says “Love your neighbor”, they’re not muttering under their breath, “*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*”. Who doesn’t believe that you should love your neighbor? Anyone who doesn’t probably isn’t someone I want to hang out with, either.

Christians are the only people that set up this false distinction between themselves and the non-religious – that if someone is an atheist, there is no meaning or value for them in any religious book, song, movie, or church service ever again – and pushing  this narrative along further serves to tear us apart more than it brings us together.

Feel free to comment, like, share, and follow below! If you appreciated this blog, become my Patron!

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

Dear Christians: Please Start Stripping C-cards

A Case of Mistaken Identity

483208412-real-estate-tycoon-donald-trump-flashes-the-thumbs-up.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2
Here’s a disclaimer: One thing that atheists tend to leave out when talking about Christianity is the immense diversity of it, either because they don’t know, or because they are attempting to focus on one aspect of it. You can see Christians out there like Ray Comfort talking about why evolution is false because bananas, and that is ridiculous indeed, or Donald Trump, most recently seen proposing a ban on all Muslims entering the US, but there are also Christians who are openly queer and fight for equality, like my friend Eliel Cruz, or people like my friend Stephen Erich, who works in Cambodia because he uses his faith to mobilize himself to help others.

I believe these are different kinds of people, while some still may overlap. But here’s the problem: They both call themselves, and each other, “Christians”. Let’s take a look at what that means.

If an accurately broad description of the word “Christian” is not, “a person who, insofar as it is possible and reasonable, implements the characteristics or principles of the teachings of the first century philosopher Jesus in their life”, I don’t know what is.

So I guess my question to Christians (the awesome kind) is: Why do you continue to call these people Christian? They clearly haven’t earned that title as nothing in their character is at all similar to Jesus. He was busy giving away free healthcare and getting crucified rather than call down a legion of angels to save him.

Furthermore, many country leaders, including Barack Obama, have said that we should not view something like ISIS as in any way indicative of Islam, and really, not even think of them as Islamic. Well, if ISIS isn’t Islamic, then Donald Trump surely can’t be a Christian. On multiple occasions, he’s tried to remind us that he’s worth 10 billion dollars (he’s worth 4), and I seem to remember Jesus saying something about it being really really really hard for rich people to get to heaven.

Why do you continue to call these people Christian? They clearly haven’t earned that title as nothing in their character is at all similar to Jesus.

One final example would be The Westboro Baptist Church. This would be a job for them. You know why? Because, hate them as much as I do, they would have the strength to strip some C-cards. “Oh, you’re gay? NAH, SON! Gimme dat C-card!” I feel very uncomfortable right now saying that other Christians need to follow the example of The Westboro Baptist Church, but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

You don’t get to just have any old values and say that you follow a person that exemplified the exact opposite values, because that’s not how words work, and the longer moderate or progressive Christians keep these people around, the more it makes you look uber bad. Keep in mind, religions are much different than nationalities or races. The religious community gets to decide what being a Christian is, and it can decide when someone is no longer that thing.

So, Christians, I would appreciate it if you thinned the herd a bit and started stripping some C-cards. You will thank me for the suggestion later. Feel free to start with yourself if you happen to be a billionaire douchebag pushing war and preaching hate…don’t see any of those around here.

Feel free to comment, like, share, and follow below! If you appreciated this blog, become my Patron!

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

 

Dear Conservatives: Empathy Applies To Bad People, Too. (Part 2)

the-opposite-of-anger-is-not-calmness-its-empathy-anger-quote

Then why is he still alive?” – Under The Red Hood

Since the beginning of time, there have been bad people. And since the beginning of time, good people have had to decide what to do with bad people. And that’s where things get dicey.

In the most recent days, I’ve heard people talking about what we need to do with ISIS, but the ones that have stuck with me are the suggestions that we should just bomb them. Not only is this idea devoid of an understanding of how complex the situation is, it’s devoid of empathy, and here’s why.

ISIS is not the only place where this startling lack of empathy can creep up. It creeps up when people think that those on welfare are just lazy and should stop abusing the system. It’s leveraged when talking about how okay it is that many prisoners receive inadequate or harmful medical treatment. Or, you can check out how easy it was to shift the tide of empathy for unarmed 18 year old Michael Brown when it was found out that he had stolen cigars from a gas station.

Yeah, I get it. We feel that there must be justice. Some form of retribution. Some vengeance. But too often what people in search of vengeance do not stop to consider is what they will not do. After all, if we’re going to call ourselves the good guys and our enemies the bad ones, we should have a reason for that.

What is the distinction between them and us? What exactly is the difference between a member of Al-Qaeda being willing to blow up a plane in pursuit of an ideal he believes in, regardless of the collateral lives lost, and us being unconcerned with the amount of false convictions in our prison system? What is the difference between 9/11 and daily drone strikes?

What’s the difference between a damned killer and a righteous one?

Basically, in order to be a good person, there have to be some things that you are not willing to do, even when dealing with extreme evil. Because that’s the definition of a good person. People being evil doesn’t mean all bets are off on how we decide to treat them.

What’s the difference between a damned killer and a righteous one?

Monsters come in many forms, and you can’t tell me that you’re willing to indiscriminately bomb these countries (as we do), support waterboarding (as Evangelicals do), forced sodomy, rectally infused puree (Abu Ghraib), etc, AND you don’t want me to call you a monster. If you do not carefully construct your worldview to include things that you are not willing to do for justice, if you are truly willing to do anything to defeat ISIS, or to feel safe, you will end up doing despicable things that will corrode your heart.

Because we must be good. And as it turns out, being good is actually the hard thing to do.

Feel free to comment, like, share, and follow below! If you appreciated this blog, become my Patron!

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

Dear Conservatives: Empathy Applies to Bad People, Too. (Part 1)

“You can’t just act, you have to think, you have to…listen! There are always wolves…” – Into The Woods

empathyquote-300x263

“You can’t just act, you have to think, you have to…listen! There are always wolves…” – Into The Woods

Since the beginning of time, there have been bad and good people. The bad people, unlike Hester Prynne, have rarely walked around with an emblem on their clothing to tell us who they are. They come in the form of teachers, politicians, cripples, priests, students, and little old women who pretend not to shoplift. And since the beginning of time, good people have had to decide what to do with bad people.

The Bible is full of this kind of language and these kinds of ideas, to say that it’s not always easy to tell who’s on what side.

Jesus (AKA that dude nobody listens to), in one of his most famous sermons, said stuff like this in Matthew 5:

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”

46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

It is abundantly clear that this is not what many Christians actually believe (which makes me wonder why we call them Christians, but I digress.) The points that the philosopher is making here are twofold:

  1. In life, you don’t always know who’s who. You can’t even always be sure you’re on the “right side”.
  2. Even if you can figure that out, you are supposed to be kind and loving towards the people that are not on the right side.

Now, personally, I don’t think that I’ll ever like some people. I’m never gonna want to sit down and have a beer with Donald Trump, and if you try to make me, I will probably physically fight you. But…if he came to my house for safety, if he was bleeding, if he was in a car accident, if a loved one of his died…I’d do the right thing. Because he’s a part of my family, and we’re the only ones here.

Feel free to comment, like, share, and follow below! If you appreciated this blog, become my Patron!

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

Why Do I Do This? (101st BLOG!!!)*

“Suffice it to say, being an atheist is still rather controversial, and in many cases, deeply misunderstood. Often we come out the other side of the ideological grinder looking a lot more like the featured photo than who we actually are.”

IMG_1996
I Am Not a Monster

My dear boy, do you ask a fish how it swims? Or a bird how it flies? No, siree, you don’t. They do it because they were born to do it.  – (Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory)

For almost a year now, I’ve blogged about being an atheist. An interesting experience, to say the least. Some of my favorite titles include “biased sophist who spews fatuous nonsense” and “Christ hater”. I will definitely be putting those on my resumé.

I’ve received more pushback writing about atheism than on writing about any other thing. Sometimes it will come directly on my Facebook in the comments, and sometimes on the blog.

That’s to be expected. I’m not writing about fluffy dogs.

I still remember the epic conversation surrounding pretty much my first public outing, and it was, ahem, glorious.

Education and Faith - Ted Kirkby

Or I remember being informed that a friend of a friend of my mother’s found something on my site unpalatable (it was never said what).

Being accused of being on a warpath, being a hateful person, or of being just a shill for Big Atheism, or being told that I was inferior because I didn’t have a degree have all happened this year…

I could be ideologically mistake, misled, whatever, but I am a quote-unquote expert on the Bible, and this conversation is like you were talking to an astrophysicist about string theory, or a mathematician about non-standard calculus. – (Actual comment from actual person on my FB)

Some people that would rather not end up in the thick of things, will privately message me, saying that they enjoy my perspective, or that I’m a total fartbag (no, they’re usually nice.)

Suffice it to say, being an atheist is still rather controversial, and in many cases, deeply misunderstood. Often we come out the other side of the ideological grinder looking a lot more like the featured photo than who we actually are.

But the question still remains.

Why Do I Do This?

I could write in some phony answer about being noble or bringing justice to the world, but that would be a lie. To tell you the truth, I don’t even write this blog because I’m an atheist.

I write because I’m a writer.

IMG_1998

And eventually, I would write about anything and everything under the sun. Writing is one of the singular most effective uses of my talent, and it’s important to know that kind of thing. If you’re a hand, be a hand. Be the best hand. If you’re a gallbladder…reevaluate your life…but then be the BEST gallbladder! (the only one).

And eventually, I want to expand this blog to talking about even more things. Politics, race, gender dynamics, dogs, anything, really. Because writing is what I’m supposed to be doing.

And if there’s any morsel of justice to be brought from this blog, it’s this: I am here to give you a perspective of the outside.

– To call to the minds of devout believers ways in which they may have failed their fellow humans.
– To point out ways in which your god not only does not make sense, but ways in which he clearly does not make you better, as you say he should, or make things better, as you say he does.
– To call you to task for supporting torture, for defending police brutality, for profiting from the sick, for preying on the dying, for lying to advance your faith, for persecuting people based on their sexual orientation, for rejecting science because it does not conform to your reality.

This blog is for believers to be able to see what those on the outside see, instead of the roses picked from the thicket of their pews, and to invite them to a perspective not of fear and hate, but of actual justice. We can make it together.

In summary, I do this to share my world. And I do hope you’ll spend some time with me in it, because I’m not evil, and I’m not a monster. I’m just an atheist.

Thank you so much for everything so far.

Signed,

Timothy “The Danger” Hucks

Twitter: https://goo.gl/MtDBa8

Instagram: https://goo.gl/2OAoVF

Youtube: https://goo.gl/h9b5tT

Facebook: https://goo.gl/0oegMs

*You know this shit was serious if I had to use more than one exclamation point. Good day.