Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1964

A Christian Response to Fifty Shades of Grey: Reviewing Pulling Back the Shades by Dannah Gresh & Dr. Juli Slattery

The trailer for Fifty Shades of Grey is out, and at my day job as a bookseller (all opinions are mine, not my employer’s, etc), I’ve seen more copies of that book go across the checkout desks this past week than I’d like to admit. It’s having a surge in popularity and people are eagerly anticipating the Valentine’s Day 2015 release of the film.

I tried to read the series when it first came out and made waves, but I couldn’t get past the first half of the first book, in which logic and consent disappear in favor of all manner of impossible things before breakfast and abuse grooming techniques. There is very little in the plot’s setup that makes sense, and there is even less that is representative of a safe, ethical, average BDSM relationship.

But there are better places to go for reviews of the controversial series. I’m here to review a book that takes on the idea of erotica from a mainstream evangelical Christian perspective.

Pulling Back the Shades is written by Secret Keeper Girl founder and purity culture expert Dannah Gresh and Dr. Juli Slattery, a Christian psychologist with close ties to Focus on the Family. It’s the Christian purity thought leaders’ response to mommy porn, and they have a lot to say.

I’ve tussled with Gresh on purity culture before, and I generally dislike her approach, though she and I have talked and I think she’s warm and personable and a good listener in person. But she happens to be of that stripe of evangelical Christian who seeks to empower women by making them aware of the male gaze to push them to live according to the terms of complementarian gender roles. In this philosophy of gender, women are to own their wholeness as human beings by being sexual only inside of a cis-normative, gender binary, Christian marriage. Complementarian women are encouraged to leave their sexual power at home, in the bedroom, and not to pose a threat to the patriarchal structure of engaging socially only as supporters, nurturers, and encouragers, rather than as thinkers, leaders, innovators, and creators.

I’m less familiar with Dr. Slattery, but she presumably keeps ideological company with the complementarians as well.

The premise of their book is simple: Evangelical Christians believe that all areas of life can and should be subject to ethical scrutiny on the basis of whether or not a thing is biblical or godly, and the advent of Fifty Shades of Grey has brought the national awareness of erotica to a peak that has provoked these Christian purity teachers to give their response.

The problem is, one of them hasn’t even read the book series — Gresh admits this up front. Slattery has read the books, but their response is unanimous: they condemn the series and erotica in general as bad for Christian women.

However, they still want to encourage Christian women in (what they deem to be) healthy sexual expression, so they spend the rest of the 171-page book trying to explain, without much detail, how this can be done.

This book fails to do what it should, which puts it on par with every other Christian book I’ve ever read that focuses on relationships or sexuality. The intended message of “You are sexual and that’s good! And beautiful! And part of God’s plan for you! Enjoy it well!” gets utterly and completely drowned out in a downpour of repression- and shame-driven caveats and conditions.

I have so many problems with the culture of shame created by the Western evangelical church around the human body, and this is one of the biggest places where it’s evident. Gresh and Slattery desperately want to encourage healthy sexual freedom, but they don’t seem to know what it is well enough to articulate it.

The first and biggest problem with this book is the fact that they never, ever discuss the concept of consent — an idea that is the basis of all ethical sexual expression and one that should be taught in the church (and never or rarely is). As far as I can deduce, consent is understood by them to be a constant state, conferred on the partners by the condition of marriage. This leaves the door wide open for pretending that marital rape doesn’t ever occur — an issue that should be addressed swiftly, especially since they’re supposedly responding to and critiquing what they see as deviant sexual behavior. But consent and rape are never mentioned, except in one case, in a testimony of a woman was raped by her guardian when she was a minor.

They also don’t seem to know what exactly erotica is. Slattery defines erotica as “[fiction that] uses fantasy ultimately to promote deception — to make you believe you can have everything you’ve ever longed for.” They then proceed to illustrate this point by listing all the irrational or impossible things that occur to Anastasia during the course of the Fifty Shades series. This makes zero sense. Erotica isn’t an exercise in impossibility for the sake of self-deception and escape (though the worst of the genre sometimes tries to do only this); erotica, at its core, is designed to entertain and arouse, ideally in a way that allows the reader to explore his or her sexual desires without acting on them. It’s the safest form of sexual self-exploration.

But in the biblical world of Gresh and Slattery, arousal caused by someone or something other than your spouse is a form of cheating, and so erotica (and porn) are illicit pleasures tantamount to adultery.

All throughout the book there are little snippets of stories told to the authors by women in the church, and most of them express that a) erotica is addictive, and b) addiction to erotica ruined the life of the storyteller.

One such testimony opens:

“I am single and erotica has ruined my life. I have been addicted for ten years and I am only twenty-five.”

Slattery comments:

“I believe this genre of literature… are very spiritual books with an aggressive spiritual agenda… These books take you on a journey that has a spiritual impact and an intended spiritual destination: destruction.“

This. This is why the book fails later on when the authors try to encourage healthy sexual expression for their readers. They premise their whole approach on the assumption that anything not firmly grounded in reality and tied to the keeping of the marriage vows is something that Satan is going to use to destroy you. Beyond the whole silly use of the slippery slope fallacy here, this approach is centered on fear of unrepressed female sexuality. A woman fully alive to her own body and sexual needs and desires is something they believe to be inherently dangerous. That’s why dancing along the edge of it is hazardous; you’re inevitably going to fall in and be unreachably far into dirtiness and sin.

Pursuing sexual awareness for a woman, they say, is creating an “emotional land mine in the bedroom” — which is to say, to have a woman be anything other than utterly dependent on her husband for arousal and appreciation of her sexuality is setting herself up for the end of her marriage. In other words, don’t even think about appreciating or enjoying sex apart from your husband since good complementarian women aren’t supposed to be sexual unless he’s right there beside you.

This brings me to a pervasive problem in Christian relationship books aimed at women: the assumption that female sexuality begins with the initiation of a woman into the world of male sexuality. This can be through abuse, rape, regretful premarital sex, or happy married sex, but it always starts and ends with a penis. This gets taken to such an extreme that even masturbation is condemned if it uses any sort of imagination or fantasy to speed things along — that would be making oneself dependent on a man other than your husband, even if he’s fictional. Which would be cheating, and a misuse of sex (by their definition of the act).

Gresh is known for her interpretation of the Hebrew references to sex in the Old Testament (yada, according to her) as “to know, to be deeply respected,” and she explains that this is a sign of how sex was intended by God for marriage, where you can have that sort of intimate knowledge of your partner. She further asserts that sex always transcends the physical act, which is how she explains that cheating is wrong (again: no mention of consent here) and why she believes that no-strings-attached sexual encounters are also wrong.

She concludes this little explanation by saying:

“Erotica places undue emphasis on the physical and disables your ability to connect emotionally.”

I find this hard to believe, seeing as erotica is entirely based on the imaginative capabilities of a sexual human being to use fantasy for arousal, and doesn’t require anything physical at all. The focus in the fantasy, I agree, is physical rather than emotional, but can’t it also follow that heightened sexual awareness can help improve intimacy in the bedroom and increase emotional connection during sex? I suspect that Slattery and Gresh both have trouble connecting their own experiences of moments where they owned their sexuality to themselves as whole human beings in positive ways. The over-emphasis on the spiritual and intellectual understandings of sexuality leave the physical out in the cold in a very Gnostic, dualistic sort of way.

Gresh brings this split out further in a later chapter, where she tells a story from her marriage where she considered herself to be owning her sexuality in her marriage in a positive way: one evening, she wore a somewhat sheer black top to the dinner table on a night when she and her husband were dining alone by candlelight. He checked her out across the table, and she congratulated herself and felt empowered. Essentially, she was exploring her ability to perform for her small audience’s male gaze and felt good about her success in catching his eye.

But again, this is about him and his arousal and her sexuality is entirely defined in reaction to or performing for his sexuality. He is the fixed point and she orbits him. It’s as if she has no sexuality outside of him, and while she is quite articulate about how women should not be ashamed of their bodies when they are with their husbands, she shows little capability of being aware of herself as a sexual being independent of her sexual relationship with her husband.

This is not a critique of Gresh or Slattery as individuals. Their stories happen to be very common, compared with the many I have heard and witnessed in my years in the church. Evangelical American Christians don’t have a framework for female sexuality that doesn’t start and stop with a husband’s penis. And I think this is ultimately why erotica is seen as a threat: it’s a primarily female-focused genre, and it explores female sexual pleasure in ways that are infrequently seen in our society. A good erotic fiction piece is a sexual outlet for a woman that requires no permission, no help, and no penis.

I wish I had space to go through this book chapter by chapter and show you the shocking things they say, how dismissive they are about therapy (Jesus fixes everything!), how abuse is something to be overcome, how evil and scary BDSM is (they have no idea how it works), and how submission (a joke, ha!) should be done.

If this is all the church has to offer on healthy expression and exploration of female sexuality, no wonder they’re so worried that Christian women will be running out to buy Fifty Shades of Grey. I wouldn’t blame them, though I might recommend they try reading Anais Nin instead.

Michigan Public School Officials Promoted (Religious) Baccalaureate Ceremony… Until Someone Finally Spoke Up

It’s really not that hard for a public school to have a baccalaureate ceremony for graduating seniors. The religious ceremony is legal as long as the school isn’t organizing or promoting it in any way.

Somehow, the Mona Shores Public Schools in Michigan never figured that out.

Here’s what we know happened at Mona Shores High School this year:

They held a baccalaureate ceremony on June 1 in the school auditorium, and it doesn’t appear that a rental fee was paid.Sign-up sheets were available in the counseling office during school hours, suggesting that the school was helping with the ceremony.Teachers and staffers attended the ceremony, presumably speaking at it and using their official titles (like “Biology Teacher Mrs. Smith”).The school’s orchestra played at the event, another indication that this was a school-sponsored event.The school promoted the ceremony on its school calendar, the district newsletter, over morning video announcements — all without indicating that this was a privately-sponsored event.

Freedom From Religion Foundation attorney Rebecca Markert was very direct in her June letter to District Superintendent Dave Peden:

The school’s apparent role in hosting and supporting attendance at this baccalaureate causes reasonable graduating seniors and parents to conclude that the District endorses the religious messages espoused at these services. The school orchestra may not perform at religious services. To avoid the perception of school sponsorship of religious practices, a public school should take measures to disassociate itself from religious activity. This means that no public school employees can be involved in the organization, planning or coordination of the baccalaureate services. Any advertisement for the service should include information indicating it is privately sponsored and the messages espoused in the service are neither approved nor endorsed by the District.

In a response letter from Peden written a month later, he indicated that changes would be made. They’re not quite enough, in my opinion, but the district is clearly on alert that a lawsuit is imminent if it doesn’t modify what it’s doing:

You may share with the complainant that we plan to:

1. Add language disclaiming any official endorsement of advertising for the ceremony.

2. Future email invitations will come from the organization running the ceremony and not the high school.

3. Make sure the orchestra students know it is a voluntary performance if in fact they perform.

4. If a school employee is chosen to be the speaker, we will not refer to his/her title with the district, just their name.

In a story on MLive.com, reporter Lynn Moore got an even more damning admission from Peden:

Peden said the school was simply trying to “help the church out” in promoting the event to students, but acknowledged that a mass email that was sent out regarding the service “made it look like we’re endorsing it.” Forest Park Covenant Church holds the baccalaureate, Peden said.

I don’t know which student and/or parent tipped off the FFRF to what was happening, but that’s what it took to make the changes happen. School officials do this sort of thing all the time. They break the law — to benefit religious people — and they keep doing it until someone calls them out on it.

It seems strange to write this, but we need more students and parents with the courage to anonymously blow the whistle on school officials.

By the way, despite what some commenters on the MLive site are saying, what Markert did wasn’t anti-Christian in the least. It was pro-neutrality. It benefits everyone in the school. Christians can still hold their ceremony; they just won’t get to use taxpayer money in the process.

Republican Senator Blocks Resolution Stating Climate Change is Real, Then Gets Humiliated by His Colleague

When Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) spoke at last month’s Secular Coalition for America Lobby Day event, he talked about the problem of science denialism. You can see video of that at the 9:59 mark of the video below:

There isn’t just lying going on about climate change. There is a whole carefully built apparatus of lies, featuring a stable of payroll scientists that polluters can trot out, as they do. Industry-funded scientists and sympathetic politicians still try to claim that the jury is out on whether carbon pollution is causing the unprecedented changes in our atmosphere and oceans that we have seen.

Indeed, one of my Republican colleagues called climate science the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.

Well, the jury is not still out. The jury is back, it has rendered its verdict, and the verdict is undeniably in. The climate crisis is real…

That science-denying Republican colleague was Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) who, this week, blocked a Senate resolution that “would have acknowledged the reality of climate change.”

In response, Whitehouse gave a stirring denunciation of Inhofe on the Senate floor:

Think Progress explains:

“I appreciate very much having had the opportunity to hear those words, from what I can only describe as an alternate reality,” Whitehouse began, before getting into detailed specifics rebutting each one of Inhofe’s points.

…

Next, Whitehouse took on Inhofe’s assertion that federal government agencies — The Department of Defense, NASA, and NOAA, for example — were colluding to promote environmentalists’ agendas. “Colluding together. That’s a fairly tough word to use,” he began.

Whitehouse: Let me tell you some of the government agencies who are so-called colluding together. How about NASA? We trust them to send our astronauts into space. We trust them to deliver a rover the size of an S.U.V. to the surface of Mars safely and drive it around, sending data and pictures back from Mars to us. You think these people know what they’re talking about? … How about the United States Navy? The commander in chief of our Pacific Command? Is he colluding when he says that? …

If you want to ignore the federal government, if you live in a world in which you think the federal government colludes with itself to make up things that aren’t true, okay. But look at the property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry. They’re the people with the biggest bet on this. They have billions of dollars riding on getting it right, and they say climate change is real, carbon pollution is causing it, we’ve got to do something about it. So does the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, because they care about the poor and the effect this will have on the people who have the least. So does every major U.S. scientific society. Every single one.

How refreshing is it to hear a voice of reason like that in Congress?

I mean, it shouldn’t be… but it is.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) who sponsored the climate change resolution said she would keep trying to get it passed because the Senate looks “silly” not acknowledging that reality.

Website for Proposed 230-Foot-Tall Cross in Alabama Says Donations Could “Lead to Someone Being Healed from Cancer”

If you were to search for the largest cross in America — and why wouldn’t you? — you’d come across a 190-foot cross in Groom, Texas and a 198-foot cross in Effingham, Illinois.

You can see the obvious problem here: America doesn’t have a cross that’s 230 feet tall. And that’s why Jesus cries to sleep every night.

Thankfully, a couple of Alabama business owners (who must be feeling very inadequate) are about to take care of that:

“I think God has and continues to bless this area, and it would make a great statement,” said [Flora-Bama Lounge owner John McInnis III]…

“While I believe that money is always best spent on food, clothing, Bibles, ministry, and other needs before all else, I support anything that helps turn this nation and world back to God,” McInnis said. “All of the problems we face today are the result of a movement away from God.”

All of them? Who knew Christians in this country could do no wrong?

I’m sure starving, poor children everywhere will totally understand why spending $750,000 on this cross will ultimately benefit them…

The investors are already joking about how soon the Giant Cross will be built:

[Businessman Jon] Butler said the $750,000 Giant Cross Project could be completed within two years, depending on donations. “It could happen sooner than that,” he said Thursday. “We don’t want to limit God.”

Hilarious.

Anyway, it’s probably unfair for me to tell them how they should spend their money. They can do whatever they want with it. But I do have a problem with what it says on the Cross’ website in order to encourage other people to donate to the campaign:

When you donate to the Gulf Coast Cross Project your donation becomes a flap of the butterfly’s wings.

Your donation could lead to not just one person to the cross but dozens or hundreds or perhaps thousands.

Your donation could lead to someone being healed from cancer.

Your donation could lead to marriage being reconciled.

This is God’s Project and millions will be supernaturally affected.

You’ve got to be shitting me. How the hell are they allowed to say that?! I guess the key word is “could,” since saying “won’t” would scare people away.

So far, they’ve only raised $100,000:

This is the actual donation thermometer on their website

I guess that means God is gonna kill a child who has cancer after forcing his parents to get a divorce.

(Image via Shutterstock. Thanks to Brian for the link)

Alabama Officials Oppose EPA Regulations Against Carbon Pollution Because It Defies God’s Will

Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules that would have Alabama cutting its power plant carbon emissions by nearly 30% by 2030.

That would be good for the environment but bad for the state’s coal industry, which would likely have to lay off employees.

But that’s not the reason state officials are unhappy with the regulations. They’re upset because the EPA is defying’s God’s Will:

Twinkle Cavanaugh

At their news conference today [Alabama Public Service Commission President Twinkle Andress] Cavanaugh and PSC commissioner-elect Chip Beeker invoked the name of God in stating their opposition to the EPA proposal. Beeker, a Republican who is running unopposed for a PSC seat, said coal was created in Alabama by God, and the federal government should not enact policy that runs counter to God’s plan.

“Who has the right to take what God’s given a state?” he said.

Cavanaugh called on the people of the state to ask for God’s intervention.

“I hope all the citizens of Alabama will be in prayer that the right thing will be done,” she said.

The right thing, even from a Christian perspective, would be to protect the environment that God has given you, not pollute it. .

But I think I know why these Christians oppose the EPA’s policy. Fossils are evidence of evolution, disproving the mythology they hold so dear, so clearly, burning fossil fuels is in God’s best interest. (I’ll be here all night.)

Cavanaugh, by the way, is the same person who defended an overtly-Christian prayer at a meeting last August (before the Greece v Galloway decision). She’s obviously more concerned with appeasing her vision of God than doing what’s best for the state.

(Thanks to William for the link)

Debunking Myths About Evolution

Mashable created this excellent, narrator-less video debunking five common myths about evolution.

Can someone please send this to Ken Ham?

(via Why Evolution is True)

James Dobson Explains Various Sex Acts to an Audience of Horrified Christians

Want to see conservative Christian leader James Dobson (circa 1980-something) talking about pornography, bestiality, glory holes, phone sex, and Prince jacking off his guitar?

Of course you do.

My favorite part is where he talks about three women doing “everything possible for three women to do to each other” during a sex show, before adding that he didn’t dare go upstairs to see two men together. Because gay dudes are icky, but watching lesbians = research for Jesus.

(via Honeydew Wilkins)

50 Signs You’re in a Bad Relationship

The video below, part of The Atheist Voice series, discusses 50 signs you’re in a bad relationship:

The video was inspired by this post by David Hayward.

A rough transcript of the video can be found on the YouTube page in the “About” section.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on the project — more videos will be posted soon — and we’d also appreciate your suggestions as to which questions we ought to tackle next!

And if you like what you’re seeing, please consider supporting this site on Patreon.

It’s Ridiculous What This Atheist County Commissioner in Tennessee Has to Put Up With

Last month, the Roane County Commissioners in Tennessee decided to put the words “In God We Trust” on the county courthouse.

“You know what this building needs?” “Justice?” “Naw. Jesus!”

But one of the commissioners took a stand against the idea. Not only did Steve Kelley (below) support church/state separation, he admitted he was an atheist:

Roane County Commissioner Steve [Kelley] says he’s been an atheist since he was a teen.

“It means I don’t believe in God,” explained [Kelley]. “I don’t have any problem with religion, religion is fine, it serves an important role in our society but not everybody has to have a belief.”

…

“It kind of diminishes my citizenship,” said Kelley.

The battle to put the phrase on courthouses has been fought recently in surrounding counties including Morgan and Anderson, but Kelley says he’s concerned over the possibility of lawsuits for the county.

“Just because other people have done it doesn’t make it right,” he said.

It was a courageous admission, but I didn’t realize the extent of his bravery until I read this profile of him in the Roane County News. It’s full of all those cliché Christian comments you can’t believe people still use:

Commissioner Fred Tedder told him he didn’t believe there’s such a thing as an atheist.

“Well, you’re looking at one,” Kelley shot back.

“The Bible says you’re a fool,” Tedder responded.

…

[Wife] Renee, who is a Christian, has seen the reaction to her husband’s lack of faith: “You can see them stiffen, and some of them won’t associate with us,” she said.

…

[Kelley] has had calls of support from people praising his courage for trying to keep government and religion separate.

Some told him they wanted to speak up, but feared retaliation against their families.

There were anonymous comments on an online bulletin board referring to Tennessee’s constitutional language forbidding atheists from serving in office. [Hemant's note: Despite being in the state Constitution, that law is unenforceable.]

…

Tedder said he’d picked up on Kelley’s beliefs before his public admission, and said his lack of faith might be attributed to his higher education.

“That’s one of the first things they teach you in college,” he said. “That there is no God and in evolution.”

Yep, that’s how college works. You go to a lecture hall, the professor tells you there’s no God and evolution is real, you all turn in your field trip forms for Hell, and then you graduate. Turns out God’s Not Dead is a documentary.

By the way, it’s great to see that the Kelleys, even though they’re in a mixed-belief relationship, have found a way to make it work. Their mutual respect comes through very clearly in the piece.

Deconstructing Conservative Atheist S.E. Cupp’s Latest Rant Against… Other Atheists

Have you been watching CNN’s Crossfire lately?

Of course you have(n’t).

S.E. Cupp, the atheist who “would like to be a person of faith,” is one of the co-hosts and, in a rant posted on CNN yesterday, she argues that conservatism is better suited for atheists than liberalism.

I know the video is purely designed to provoke a response from the left… but I’ll bite. Let’s go through the 95-second rant, word by word.

I don’t know.

That pretty much sets the tone for the whole video…

I don’t believe in God, but I’m not mad at Him. I became an atheist because I’m not a joiner. I didn’t want to be part of a club or a group.

This is the only sensible part of the video. Enjoy it. It doesn’t last long.

It seems like there’s this idea perpetuated by atheists that atheists are somehow disenfranchised or left out of the political process. And I just don’t find that to be the case.

There’s a difference between being victims of illegal disenfranchisement (as some minority groups arguably are) and just plain being ignored. We’re ignored. Politicians don’t pander to us as they do evangelical Christians. They’re not courting the endorsements of atheist organizations. They don’t make any promises specifically to us about how they’re going to vote when they get elected. And I don’t necessarily blame them. Atheists don’t vote in lockstep and we don’t have the numbers to make pandering worthwhile. Reaching out to us would probably hurt candidates a lot more than it would help. (That said, there are minority groups much smaller than atheists that get plenty of attention from candidates.)

So, yes, we are left out of the political process. But that’s not entirely the fault of our government. If we could deliver votes like church leaders can, they’d start paying attention to us. It’s as simple as that.

Let’s also not forget the stigma that you can’t be openly atheist if you want to win an election. Despite the handful of states that still have unenforceable laws in the books preventing atheists from holding political office, there’s nothing preventing us from running as candidates. But atheism is still a liability for candidates. Remember: Former Rep. Pete Stark is the only person in modern history who has served in Congress while admitting to not believing in a higher power — and he came out as a non-theist decades after being elected the first time.

Again: Are we left out of the political process? Yes. But there are practical reasons for that. The point is: I don’t hear atheists complaining that the Man is keeping us down or that there’s a conspiracy against us, and that’s what Cupp’s comment sounds like to me.

I think, in fact, atheists have grown more vocal over the past decade or two than ever before. In fact, in many ways, atheists act like a religious body unto themselves.

Sure, we’ve grown more vocal, but how the hell are we like a religious body? It’s not like we have a leader. (Just look at the backlash by many atheists against Richard Dawkins‘ recent tweets for evidence of that.) There may be church-like “congregations” in some places, but we’re only talking about a fraction of a percent of all atheists in America that participate in such groups.

Cupp doesn’t elaborate on how we’re “religious.” She just sees other atheists as a monolith — and never bothers to back it up.

There’s another myth that conservatism is somehow hostile to atheism. I also don’t find that to be the case. I’m a conservative atheist; I’ve felt very welcomed by this party.

Notice she never says the word “Republican.” Because they absolutely don’t want atheists in their party. They don’t even want moderate Christians in their party. So what “party” is she talking about? Academic small-c conservatism? Maybe, but that’s not the group that’s in power within the GOP.

Cupp also never elaborates on how exactly she’s a conservative. On which issues does she depart from liberals?

Is it possible she’s welcomed by the “party” in the same way Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is? That is to say, her views as an atheist are completely out of sync with the majority of atheists just like Thomas’ views are not shared by most African Americans. I’m sure conservatives love atheists who don’t seem to give a damn about their atheism or the political implications of it.

Here’s a spoiler for Cupp: They don’t welcome you because you’re an atheist. They welcome you because you’re an atheist who dislikes other atheists.

In fact, I’d go so far as to say conservatism is far more intellectually honest and respectful of atheism than liberalism has been. For conservatives, atheism is something that is tolerated, respected, we appreciate an intellectual diversity. Most conservative atheists I know, including myself, have a really healthy respect for the role of religion in society and in this country in particular.

Gotta love that intellectual diversity within the GOP right now. It ranges from Sarah Palin to Ted Cruz.

Look, most atheists I know have no problem accepting that other people are religious — we “tolerate” them, too. What we want is for the government to treat us all equally and not to privilege religious beliefs over non-religious beliefs. Cupp, on the other hand, respects the role of religion so much that she thinks the Presidency ought to remain in the hands of the faithful because she doesn’t think “that someone who represents 5 to 10 percent of the population should be representing and thinking that everyone else in the world is crazy, but me.” (Thinking everyone else is Hellbound? Perfectly fine, I guess.)

Cupp also never explains what the role of religion ought to be. Over which issues should religion play a key role? Science education? Access to birth control? Comprehensive sex education in public schools? Marriage equality? Programs that help the poor?

You won’t get any specifics from her.

And in contrast, on the left, it seems as though there is this knee-jerk embrace of what is more like a militant hostility, a reaction against intellectual diversity. It’s exclusionary.

Honest question: What does “intellectual diversity” mean to her? On civil issues like marriage equality, what’s an “intellectual” position that doesn’t support full equality for everyone? What’s an “intellectual” position that opposes proper science — not Creationism or climate change denialism — being taught in our schools?

How is the left “militant”? Is that position any different from those on the right? Who are we excluding?

Again, no specifics. Just a lot of buzzwords.

As for exclusionary, if you’re looking for the conservative outreach to atheists, just look for the atheist booth at CPAC. It’s somewhere near the booth for the Log Cabin Republicans.

Bill Maher thinks 95% of the world has a neurological disorder! I don’t think you’d find that on the right.

He’s a comedian using over-the-top rhetoric to make a provocative point. And plenty of atheists criticize him. He’s not our leader, either, by the way; he just happens to have a popular TV show.

And she thinks you wouldn’t find that on the right? Really?! The right tends to perceive atheists as immoral heathens carving out a path straight to hell. What “right” is she looking at?

And for that reason, I’ll say it: I think our atheists are better than yours.

“Our atheists.” An exclusive club that includes Cupp, Edwina Rogers, and… well, that’s pretty much it.

Who knew most of us atheists were doing it wrong? Glad Cupp could set us all straight.

Because the atheist who’s ashamed of being an atheist is somehow atheisting better than all the rest of us.

Oh, and here’s some advice: When you’re making the biggest point of your video, don’t imitate Ann Coulter.

(Thanks to Matt for the link)