Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1920

The Black Mass in Oklahoma Featured 42 Attendees and *Hundreds* of Catholic Protesters

Over the weekend, there was a controversial Black Mass ceremony in Oklahoma. Even the Governor spoke out against it. More recently, Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul S. Coakley sued Adam Daniels and his Dakhma of Angra Mainyu Satanic church because they supposedly stole consecrated communion wafers from the Church for their event, though Daniels returned the wafers to Coakley while saying they were sent to him legally by a priest in Turkey.

So how did the event go?

Only 42 ticket holders attended the actual event (in the 80-seat venue)…

Two hours later, the #BlackMass is about to conclude. Filled with music, rituals and a sermon. Story on @NEWS9 10pm pic.twitter.com/gtDVMm8o78

— Heather HOPE (@HeatherHopeTV) September 22, 2014

… while hundreds of Catholic protestors stood outside to complain:

I'm surprised at the sheer number of protesters. Very serious crowd here. pic.twitter.com/pemfYxj0M9

— Graham Lee Brewer (@grahambrewer) September 21, 2014

“For Catholics, it’s the most grievous offense against God you can commit,” said Francis Slobodnik, who drove in on a bus from Kansas for the event.

“We came down here to show our displeasure in a prayerful, peaceful way, to show our support for God and our faith and to stand up to satan,” said Slobodnik.

Talk about an overreaction… and considering that the 42 attendees included the organizers, band members, at least a couple of atheists who just wanted to check it out, and (I’m assuming) a few journalists who bought tickets to get an inside look at the ceremony, there were probably, like, five actual Satanists who came for the event who had nothing to do with running it. After the event, I’m guessing all of them just went back to their regularly-scheduled lives.

This was a non-issue to begin with and it’s amazing how personally offended so many Catholics got over what they felt was an affront to their faith. As if the Church could survive pedophilia scandals, backlash against its anti-gay policies, and the scientific revolution… but a few dozen people privately gathering in Oklahoma City were going to bring the whole institution down.

(Top image via Shutterstock. Portions of this article were posted earlier)

Ex-Con Jim Bakker Is Back With TV Offers of Obscenely Marked-Up Survival Goods

Jim Bakker, the fundamentalist swindler, has always been good for some unexpected mirth. He made me laugh, for instance, when he earnestly confessed that the first time he read the Bible all the way through was… after he went to prison — that is, after almost a quarter century of being a professional God expert.

Now Bakker is at it again.

The televangelist who served five years in a federal prison on fraud and conspiracy charges in the early 1990s is now selling End of the World Biscuits, Time of Trouble Beans and other survival gear for the end of days…

Bakker hawks his wares on his self-titled The Jim Bakker Show, where instead of purchasing items, viewers can buy “Love Gifts” – as they’re called — by making “donations” at extremely marked-up prices.

Along with the Time of Trouble Beans, which consists of 14 totes full of black bean burger mix for $3,000 and End of the World Biscuits, food items include End of the World Gravy and Kevin’s Krazy Lasagna. Viewers can get an assortment of other survival gear including a Bakker’s Dozen Extreme Canteen Kit that consists of 13 packs of ponchos, thermal blankets, glow stick and whistles for $500.

No doubt, Bakker needs a little help paying off his still-standing debt to the taxman — he reportedly owes the IRS a cool six million dollars.

Then again, he may have legally insulated himself from the income that end-times-fearing dupes keep sending him. On paper, most if not all of the assets held by his enterprises are owned by associates of Bakker’s, rather than by the con artist himself.

The Problem with the Conservative Christian View on Spanking

In a recent Slate piece, Jillian Keenan wrote about spanking as a sexual act — and how that’s why it shouldn’t be used as punishment:

… when you cause blood to rush to a child’s butt, you’re also causing it to rush to his or her other sex organs. The other time this kind of genital blood engorgement happens is during erection or arousal.

Oxytocin, a hormone that is released during arousal, can increase pain tolerance by as much as 75 percent. So I wasn’t surprised to read that some kids who are regularly spanked experience a surge of oxytocin when they sense danger. It makes sense. If a kid expects a parent to cause physical pain, why wouldn’t her brain trigger an unconscious state of arousal to release the hormone that helps mitigate that pain? Does the possibility that parental spankings trigger sexual arousal hormones along with tears make anyone else a little uncomfortable?

Her piece raises questions that have been uncomfortably simmering in the back of my mind for years. If modesty is so important to conservative Christianity, why is it okay for parents to ask their kids to bare their butts for spankings? If we want our kids to tell people “No” if they’re being touched inappropriately, why is it okay for an authority figure to hit children in their genital regions? If God is a merciful God, why is hitting a child the best way to deal with misbehavior? How can physical pain that’s not a direct result from an action (e.g., getting burned when you touch fire) be a positive learning tool?

I was spanked until I was 16 by both my mother and father. At some point my mom stopped asking me to pull my pants down for spankings, but I don’t remember when. I do remember being told not to wear jeans for spankings, though, because it would be too ineffective through the thick fabric. I never felt that spankings were sexual, but I am still prone to massive anxiety if an authority figure pulls me aside for a private talk, just because that was how my dad initiated a “correction.”

After coming out of conservative Christianity (and leaving Virginia), I’ve found, to my surprise, that few people I talk to outside of that world think that spanking is a positive parenting choice. Recent data from the University of Chicago suggests that my experience is backed by the numbers and that white, conservative Christians in the South are more likely to see spanking in a positive light than those outside of those groups:

Christian blogger Matthew Paul Turner, writing about the Adrian Peterson controversy, stated:

Today, the most notable proponents of spanking are American evangelicals. They not only preach the gospel of corporal punishment, they also impart messages that lay the foundations for abuses against children and the protection of such abuse by our legal system.

We have books about spanking. Popular Christian talk shows promote the benefits of spanking. Pastors preach and theologize spanking. Organizations like Focus on the Family offer parents resources about how and when to spank.

The ties between Christianity and corporal punishment are so strong that a large number of conservative Christians parents simple deny studies that suggest spanking does more harm than good.

There are Bible verses that back the popular Christian stance on spanking as a positive parenting tool, but the metaphorical meaning of the concept of “the rod” is one that has validly been disputed by more progressive theologians who do not believe that God endorses spanking in its current popular form. But the issue is moot, I think.

Spanking may have been endorsed in the time of the Bible’s writing, but so was slavery and women not owning property. A woman would also have to marry her rapist if he was caught. We’re in a new era here, and it is intellectually irresponsible to assume that all the things in the Bible should be so broadly applied to people here and now. The spirit of the teachings of Jesus promoted mercy, compassion, understanding, and respect for the individuality of others, and the spanking I grew up with absolutely did not reinforce any of that. As a result, I have a very hard time accepting any argument from those who say that they differentiate between spanking and abuse.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Alabama Superintendent Sends Godly Messages to Faculty Members Every Week

You probably won’t be surprised to learn that a school district in Alabama violated the First Amendment by promoting Christianity. But your eyebrow might go up a bit when you hear just how much Superintendent Randy Wilkes (below) played a role in the process.

Wilkes was just hired over the summer to run the Phenix City Public Schools. (That’s not a typo. It’s just Alabama.)

Every week, he sends an inspirational email to all faculty members. Not only are they extremely incoherent, they all include biblical/godly references. (Which is especially ironic since the high school’s mascot is the Red Devil.)

Check out this recent email:

Maybe you’re thinking, that’s weird… but it’s just one actual reference to the Bible. Not a huge deal.

(Also: Quack! Soar!)

But his previous week’s email directly quoted Deuteronomy… and had more quacking.

And the week before that, he quoted Psalms and Ephesians and referred to something he literally called a “Praise and Worship Service”:

(I don’t think he realized that George Bernard Shaw once said, “There is nothing in religion but fiction.”)

Someone must have tipped off the Freedom From Religion Foundation because they sent a letter to the District’s School Board yesterday, pointing out all of these references and more:

It is our information and understanding that Superintendent Wilkes hosts a “praise and worship” service that he uses his public office to promote. We understand that he uses his position as superintendent to ask public school employees to attend his worship services. As we understand it, the praise and worship service mentioned below was voluntary, but that the proselytizing continued into the mandatory teacher institute that followed. We also understand, and Wilkes has admitted in emails, that the proselytizing continues using public school emails.

…

Wilkes has violated the Constitution on at least two counts: first, by hosting and promoting a worship service using his position as superintendent; and second, by proselytizing public employees using his official position.

…

Government meetings and emails are not the appropriate time for sermonizing. The District must take immediate steps to ensure that no such proselytizing occurs as future meetings. Wilkes must be instructed to use his position and its perks, including his email and access to employees, for secular educational purposes. He may not promote his personal religion, his religious services, or his religious beliefs using his position as superintendent. Please inform us in writing of the actions you are taking on this matter. We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to a reply at your earliest convenience.

It’s a little early to expect a response already, but it’s hard to hope for change when the problem begins at the top.

Quack! Quack! Quack!

Why the “Atheist Positivity Challenge” is Wildly Misguided

In an article on Salon, Steve Neumann suggests that atheists spend too much time “gloating about the lunacy and misdeeds of specific Christians.” In an effort to halt this “unnecessary” and “counterproductive” behavior, and to “rehabilitate the reputation of atheism in America,” he has issued what he calls the Atheist Positivity Challenge (APC):

… refrain from posting disparaging commentary about Christian newsmakers on Facebook and other social media sites — including blogs — for one month.

Such commentary, Neumann seems to think, is in line with Bill Maher‘s oft-quoted “religion is a neurological disorder” statement or Richard Dawkins‘ 2012 Reason Rally exhortation to “mock” and “ridicule” believers. Now there surely is some degree of irony in faulting atheists for suggesting that more extreme religious leaders are representative of believers in general, while citing two of the most outspoken atheists of our time as evidence of what is wrong with atheism in general. Still, Neumann provides an example of this “gloating” to illustrate what he has in mind. And it seems to fall significantly short of what he thinks he’s found.

The idea for the APC came to me when I read a post last week from atheist blogger Libby Anne, who wrote about the continued downhill slide of mega-church pastor Mark Driscoll [specifically, in reference to his 2001 message board comments that God designed women to basically be penis homes for men]… the problem with focusing on clowns like Driscoll is that it’s much too easy to single out for righteous indignation the most visibly disgraceful member of a group. And the unavoidable implication that others get from this is that the entire group must hold those beliefs as well.

Neumann suggests that this is “basically guilt by association,” but

The simple fact is that Driscoll is an outlier in the Christian world. Like atheism, Christianity is an incredibly heterogenous movement… And though Libby Anne incorporates an important caveat when she says that she’s not surprised that this is the viewpoint taken by at least some evangelical men and not all evangelical men — the implication is still there, and it will be taken that way by Christians nonetheless.

On the one hand, Neumann underscores an important point: it is unfair and incorrect to attribute this view to those who do not share it. It is unfair and incorrect to attempt generalizations of evangelicals based off of Driscoll, since he is undoubtedly more extreme than many. But, at the same time, let’s not pretend that he is just one “clown,” or simply the “most visibly disgraceful member of a group.” Driscoll was (and may once again be) a mega-church pastor, who boasted of 15,000 church members in Seattle alone. He’s not just a peculiar guy banging away at his keyboard, ignored by everyone else. He is someone who shares his misogyny and homophobia with his congregation — not as his own opinion, but as an opinion from on High. The pastor’s words are supposed to reflect the teachings of the Bible and the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God. His sentiments to the churchgoer’s mind, then, are not merely quirks, but divine direction.

But Driscoll is not even just a religious pariah with an unusually large congregation. He is the author of multiple successful books. He’s written articles that have been featured, among other places, on Fox News, FaithStreet and CNN’s religion blog. He’s made television appearances on Fox News Channel, CNN, etc. His work has been heralded by prominent anti-abortion sites. In 2010, Preaching magazine listed Driscoll among the top 25 influential pastors in the past 25 years — along with other Christian bigwigs such as Rick Warren and Billy Graham – declaring him a “model for thousands of young pastors” who “may well be an example of how preachers will influence other preachers in the 21st century.”

So, no, we cannot and should not falsely overstate Driscoll’s prominence. But no more should we pretend Driscoll is an insignificant outlier or a bad apple whose bizarre attitudes are unique only to himself. Driscoll is more radical than a lot of people. But he is a radical trying to mainstream his particular brand of radicalism. And, until his house of cards imploded, he was proving very successful at doing so.

But it’s also inaccurate to suggest that atheists illustrate the dangerous extremes of, for instance, Driscoll’s particular brand of theology in order to “gloat” at the wackiness of an outlier. Drawing attention to harmful belief systems, particularly as they are gaining ground, is a useful endeavor. Would the long, slow demise of Driscoll’s empire have come to pass if it was merely ignored? Almost certainly not; very few significant problems ever work themselves out by being ignored. And in this, atheists voices were probably outnumbered by the voices of believers — Christians who recognized the poisonous nature of Driscoll’s homophobia and misogyny and the need to shine a light on it. I doubt that “gloating about the lunacy… of specific Christians” is the motivation of Christians like Warren Throckmorton who has been chronicling the Mark Driscoll saga for several months, or The Christian Left on Facebook, in highlighting his poor behavior, or any of the other Christians who criticized him; and I fail to see justification for attributing these base motives to similar efforts on the part of atheists. (Speaking personally, having escaped misogynist fundamentalism myself, these revelations certainly bring no gloating joy. To me, and I think many atheists, how Driscoll represents Christianity to the world is of minimal concern — unlike how his Christianity impacts the lives of his flock.)

No matter how abrasive or off-putting Neumann finds particular statements from Dawkins or Maher, it’s not accurate to compare an exhortation to mock someone for believing that a wafer turns into human flesh with a legitimate effort to highlight harmful teachings. It might not be polite to laugh at someone for holding a demonstrably false belief, but deeply misogynistic teachings from a mega-church leader aren’t a laughing matter. They have a real impact on real people and should be addressed honestly, openly, and loudly. (That’s an opinion I share with the many Christians who have repeatedly condemned Driscoll for his malicious theology.) Neumann’s cautions about exaggerating impact are valid, and his points about rhetoric are worth considering, but he is absolutely wrong to conflate justified criticism of religious leaders with a Schadenfreude-fueled desire to take a swipe at the religious.

An Atheist Will Deliver the Invocation in Huntsville, Alabama (!) Later This Week

Back in June, we learned that the City Council in Huntsville, Alabama had invited Blake Kirk to deliver an upcoming invocation, only to rescind that offer after learning that he was a Wiccan. They cited “community fears” as the reason for his rejection.

Some readers wrote emails to council members in response, and the general consensus among those members was that they had no idea why this happened. The selection of invocation speakers, they said, was done by Rev. Frank Broyles, a local interfaith leader who coordinated the invocation calendar.

Well, after that brouhaha, the council was determined to make sure future invocations would reflect the “diversity of beliefs of Huntsville citizens.”

It would be much easier to either have a moment of silence — which is what the City Council will continue to do from time to time and also if a minister has to cancel at the last minute — or to have nothing, Broyles said. But the struggle to acknowledge and honor the diversity of paths in the community that give citizens meaning is worth engaging.

So a couple of weeks later, what did they do to showcase that diversity?

They invited a Methodist:

Debbie Esslinger, an active lay member of Trinity United Methodist Church and volunteer leader with Interfaith Mission Service, urged the mostly full council chambers to “reach across our differences and beyond our comfort zones to discover the common threads in all of us.”

Only in Huntsville is a Methodist someone far from the mainstream…

City Attorney Peter Joffrion said that Kirk would be invited back soon, adding, “We decided to pull back, to do some education maybe, and to introduce him more gently at another time.”

“More gently.” As if Kirk was anything but gentle or the Christian critics are going to magically settle down after a couple of weeks.

…

Well, maybe Broyles has finally come to his senses. Kirk hasn’t been invited back, but to my surprise, an atheist will give the invocation later this week. (Did I mention this is in Alabama?!)

American Atheists Regional Director Charles Miller announced Monday evening that Kelly McCauley, an atheist and member of the North Alabama Freethought Association, will give the invocation at Thursday’s City Council meeting.

…

“This is a small step in the right direction to bring Huntsville’s ceremonial practices in line with recent court decisions and make Huntsville’s claim of being an ‘Inclusive Community’ a reality,” said Miller.

…

[Miller added:] “This was never about having an atheist give an invocation; it is about following the law and treating everyone as equals.”

A press release issued by Miller pointed out that the Huntsville City Council has twice rejected atheist inclusion at meetings:

The inclusion of an atheist among those offering the invocations did not come without demands being made by three national organizations that promote the separation of religion and government. In 2012, Huntsville resident Shannon Kish tried to contact the City Commission about the issue but they were unresponsive. Ms. Kish took her concern to the Freedom from Religion Foundation and they wrote the City alerting them that their practices were not in compliance with the law then in effect. In the spring of 2013 Mr. Miller requested a meeting with the City to discuss the issue, pointing out that a number of religious groups and the non-religious were still not represented among those offering the invocations, offering to provide names of leaders willing to serve in that capacity. “The City did not follow up”, according to Mr. Miller. “I knew that the method the City was using to select those offering the invocations and had told them so. Apparently they could not accept constructive alternatives that would include the non-religious and I knew that sooner or later they would misstep”. Earlier this year the City cancelled the invocation to be offered by Blake Kirk, a Wiccan, substituting a “moment of silence” for that session and later returning to the practice of offering an invocation. Americans United for the Separation of Church and State wrote a letter on Mr. Kirk’s behalf.

I’ll post the video of McCauley’s invocation as soon as I have it.

(Large parts of this article were posted earlier.)

After Atheist’s (Second) Impassioned Plea Against “In God We Trust” Signs, Ballwin Officials Reject Them in 6-2 Vote

Remember how the Ballwin Board of Aldermen in Missouri were thinking about putting up “In God We Trust” displays on all city-owned buildings? The Holy Infant Knights of Columbus had pledged $750 to make that happen.

A couple of weeks ago, at a Board meeting, atheist Nikki Moungo urged the aldermen to reconsider the idea with an impassioned speech. At the end of it, she even offered to give the alderman $1,000 if they’d put up signs reading “E pluribus unum” instead.

Nikki Moungo (center) speaking to the crowd

Last night, at the Board of Aldermen Meeting, Moungo was there once again to make sure they did the right thing. (There were even members of the St. Charles Community College Secular Student Alliance there to back her up!)

And, as expected, Moungo’s speech was fantastic:

Please forgive me if I run over time. I have several emails from Ballwin residents that are afraid to be here to speak out for obvious reasons. So I will be speaking on behalf of those [people].

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Aldermen/women, fellow citizens:

Tonight I’m not going to tell you more about being an atheist, about Secular Humanism, or why I feel these displays are unnecessary, even detrimental to our community.

Tonight I’d rather discuss the intent behind the Knights of Columbus (KoC) proposal. In West Newsmagazine, Mr. Strange of the KoC stated these displays are “an appropriate way to promote patriotism.” I beg to question the primary objective behind their proposal.

As a taxpaying citizen, I voraciously question the integrity of aldermen taking money from a religious organization in order to display their religious advertisement in a taxpayer owned building.

If the mayor or aldermen are members of the Holy Infant Church, perhaps they should abstain themselves from this vote, as it indicates a clear bias.

However, if this tax-exempt religious organization succeeds in paying city officials to advertise their religious message on taxpayer property, it must be allowed for tax-paying citizens to also have their various, religious or non, advertisements placed upon these hallowed walls.

If this proposal passes, the aldermen need to bring in their own tools and pry the existing city motto off the wall. An “In God We Trust” plaque underneath “Ballwin: Bringing People Together” — is an unscrupulous lie. “We” implies all, and “we” simply do not all trust in God. Some trust in completely different gods and goddesses altogether. Again, “From many: One.”

Since last I spoke here, a death threat has been made and many prayers have been given in my name, but I’ve also received surprising messages of support from citizens of Ballwin. On their behalf, please don’t speak for the many Ballwin citizens of non-belief, or whom pray to a non-Christian god. They wanted to be here tonight, to speak out, but these citizens fear for their jobs, their families, and their lives; with good reason.

These are the people who live next door to you, all of you; they are your children’s teachers, your trusted physician, your firefighters, EMS, veterans and soldiers, and, yes, local law enforcement. “We” are many. “We” are diverse.

Interestingly, I have received support from members of the Holy Infant church, who are also afraid to speak out; may you know them when their tithes begin to wither.

Let’s “patriotize” our community, but not with the use of empty, patronizing, religious slogans. If the City of Ballwin is truly interested in promoting patriotism, I propose creating a “Citizens for a Better Ballwin” community program to honor citizens for their good works. What embodies patriotism, the desire to improve your community, more than the giving of yourself to that community? Isn’t that what being a patriot is all about?

Religion does not a patriot make. I will forward this proposal to your respective emails later for your review and consideration.

I would also strongly encourage the city to host an annual “Cultural Days” festival to encourage awareness of the diversity that exists in Ballwin, which is currently being summarily ignored.

I ask you, where was Ballwin’s sense of community when, in 2012, my 18-year-old neighbor, Matthew Pelligrini, was brutally murdered in Clifton Heights? Why didn’t the Ballwin Christian community or KoC come out in support of a murdered boy and his grieving Christian family who’ve lived here since 2002? Where were the city officials? Ballwin, we really need to work on “Bringing People Together,” and a silly plaque is not going to accomplish this feat.

Know that I support the right of Ballwin citizens to display religious decorative items on their personal property, such as Lewis Greenberg’s Holocaust art display. The city was reported as spending in excess of $80,000 on attempting to stop Mr. Greenberg from exercising his First Amendment Rights. I would further the argument that the allowance of an “In God We Trust” display in city buildings, while pursuing Mr. Greenberg, indicates the cities desire to promote only a monotheistic Christian god.

Alderman Terbrock indicated to a Ballwin resident in an email that it didn’t matter that people from outside of Ballwin opposed the signs. I would caution him that, indeed, it does matter. These are the people who see Ballwin on top lists of great, safe places to live. This proposal and ensuing debate will tell potential business owners and residents that their taxpaying monies are not welcome here unless they subscribe to a Christian or Catholic supernatural deity.

It would be wise to remember that the Department of Justice is coming to St. Louis County to investigate the civil rights abuses after the travesty in Ferguson; so please keep our diversity in mind and choose not to abuse our First Amendment rights.

In closing, Thomas Paine once proudly proclaimed, “Independence is my happiness, the world is my country, and my religion is to do good.”

If I could state it any better myself, I would.

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

Wow… you could tell how much confidence she gained since her last speech.

And the best part? It worked!

The aldermen voted 6-2 against putting up the “In God We Trust” signs.

Speaking out at local meetings: It works. Moungo set the bar yet again for how to be assertive and personal when demanding inclusivity over Christian privilege. That’s how you do it.

(Portions of this article were posted earlier)

More Like Oh No-ly Water

Okay, I was wrong. Babies can be atheists:

(via Tosh.0. Thanks to Terry for the link)

New Survey Says Americans Equally Split Between Those Who Think Government Gets in the Way of Religion and Vice Versa

According to the 2014 American Values Survey just released by the Public Religion Research Institute, Americans are equally divided between those who worry about religious groups turning their beliefs into law (e.g. Hobby Lobby) and those who worry that government is interfering with their faith (e.g. Hobby Lobby):

Of course, when you break it down by religious group, that split varies widely. 66% of White Evangelicals see their religious freedom under attack (the Fox News Channel crowd) while only 31% of the religiously Unaffiliated feel the same way (see below):

Where it gets really interesting is when you break down the data to individual religious groups, like Catholics:

Catholic Millennials (age 18-34) are more concerned about religious groups trying to pass laws that force their beliefs on others (58%) than they are about the government interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion (36%). Catholic members of the Silent Generation (age 69 and older), by contrast, are more concerned about the government interference with people’s religious practice (55%) than they are about religious groups attempting to pass laws that impose their beliefs on others (36%).

Overall, younger people are slightly more likely to worry about religious groups legislating their beliefs (52%) than about the “War on Religion” (43%). If only they would vote…

The upside, though, is that we know the percentage of Unaffiliated Americans is still growing. If the two trends merge, that likely means more support for church/state separation.

Friendly Atheist Podcast Episode 19: Dan Arel, Author of Parenting Without God

Our latest podcast guest is Dan Arel, author of Parenting Without God:

Dan has written articles about religion, science, and politics for websites like Salon, AlterNet, and the Huffington Post. His first book, called Parenting Without God, was released in August.

We spoke with Dan about how his religious teacher used to fast-forward through science videos, what it was like growing up in a Pentecostal Christian home, and why it’s important to discuss parenting without religion.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the podcast. If you have any suggestions for people we should chat with, please leave them in the comments, too.

You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, get the MP3 directly, check it out on Stitcher, or just listen to the whole thing below.

And if you like what you’re hearing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon and leaving us a positive rating!