Hemant Mehta's Blog, page 1965

Secular Group Showcase: Lehigh Valley Humanists

Last week, we asked you to tell us about your local secular group in an attempt to encourage the start-up and growth of “good without god” communities. We’ve received a lot of responses already (Thanks!) and here’s just a glimpse at the first group: The Lehigh Valley Humanists in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania:

A few years ago, our book club read Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell. The last few lines have always stuck with me as we try to grow our group. A character has decided to dedicate his life to an unpopular, but worthy cause. He is told that his efforts will be wasted and amount “to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean!” He replies, “Yet what is any ocean but a multitude of drops?” You (or your group) don’t need to be the whole ocean. Just do your part, and together, we’ll make a difference.

You can read more of our interview here.

…

Want to be featured in this series? If you can fill out most of the questions below, your group is probably a good candidate to be showcased on our page. We hope to hear from you! E-mail submissions to SecularGroups@gmail.com!

Group name:

Location:

Mission Statement:

Links to group’s Facebook. website, Twitter, etc.:

When was your group established?

What does your group do for fun to connect with each other?

What community/volunteer activities does your group participate in, if any?

What political/social activism does your group do, if any?

Does your group have a favorite charity to fundraise for or promote?

Do you have any stories to share about your city having a positive reaction to your group?

What are some challenges your group has faced?

What advice would you like to share with other groups struggling to grow or are just starting up?

**Please attach some photos of your group as a whole, in action, and having fun**

42,000 Schools in India Will Soon Teach That Stem Cell Research, Cars, and TVs Were Inspired by Ancient Texts

There’s a new case of religion making its way into public schools, where fiction is taught as fact and mythical beliefs override what academic scholars say.

Except this case has nothing to do with Christianity or Creationism. It takes place in India, where 42,000 schools across the western state of Gujarat have some new compulsory reading material.

The 125-page book, Tejomay Bharat,… was recently mandated as supplementary reading by the Gujarat government for all government primary and secondary schools.

Published by the Gujarat State School Textbook Board (GSSTB), the book seeks to teach children “facts” about history, science, geography, religion and other “basics”.

What are some of these “facts”?

“… America wants to take the credit for invention of stem cell research, but the truth is that India’s Dr Balkrishna Ganpat Matapurkar has already got a patent for regenerating body parts…. You would be surprised to know that this research is not new and that Dr Matapurkar was inspired by the Mahabharata [an ancient epic that includes the Bhagavad Gita].

…

“We know that television was invented by a priest from Scotland called John Logie Baird in 1926. But we want to take you to an even older Doordarshan… Indian rishis using their yog vidya would attain divya drishti. There is no doubt that the invention of television goes back to this… In Mahabharata, Sanjaya sitting inside a palace in Hastinapur and using his divya shakti would give a live telecast of the battle of Mahabharata… to the blind Dhritarashtra”.

…

“What we know today as the motorcar existed during the Vedic period. It was called anashva rath. Usually a rath (chariot) is pulled by horses but an anashva rath means the one that runs without horses or yantra-rath, what is today a motorcar. The Rig Veda refers to this…”

…

“It is better to die for one’s religion. An alien religion is a source of sorrow,” the book says on Page 118. “Guru Gobind Singh had four sons — Ajit Singh, Juzar Singh, Zoravar Singh and Fateh Singh… King’s men tried hard to convince them, but they courageously replied, ‘Our grandfather Guru Tegh Bahadur gave his head for saving Hindu religion and we will also give our lives but will never leave our religion’.”

Frightening. And just inaccurate in so many ways. Thinking of a hypothetical technology doesn’t mean you created it or necessarily inspired it. And saying it was all predicted in ancient epics misleads students into thinking there’s something more to those ancient texts than there really is.

The textbook in question — along with several others — is written by Dina Nath Batra (his name is sometimes spelled in other ways), a former teacher who essentially has the same mindset as a Religious Right school board member from Texas. Batra has a history of complaining about the contents of history and science books. In 2007, the government of Madhya Pradesh (a state in India) followed Batra’s advice and replaced sex education with yoga.

Each book also includes a message from now-Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the former chief minister of Gujarat.

Despite criticism, the state government says it has no plans to replace or correct the textbooks this year.

Richard Dawkins, Again, Shoots Himself in the Foot on Twitter

Late last night, Richard Dawkins made a series of tweets that made sense initially and then veered into downright weirdness. Let’s start with the first:

Totally with him there. Some things are worse than others. Saying as much doesn’t mean the first thing is “good.” It’s a simple, straightforward concept. Getting only four hours of sleep is bad. Getting no sleep is worse. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating people get only four hours of sleep.

But the examples Dawkins used to prove his point were quite possibly the worst ones he could’ve chosen:

Really? Of all the examples he could’ve chosen, one of the best-known authors in the world went with pedophilia and date rape? “Mild pedophilia,” to many, probably makes as much sense as a “slight decapitation,” and saying that some rapes are worse (or better?) than others isn’t a good way to win people over to his side.

When people complained, he explained that you could rank things differently or substitute other examples, but that really wasn’t the problem.

Yes, I get his point. We all get his point. I thought Amanda Marcotte did a really good job explaining his mistake:

This is bad writing, if Dawkins was setting out to create clear-cut examples of the principle he’s trying to illustrate. When explaining a principle, it’s unwise to go straight for examples that the public is legitimately confused about because other people are trying to muddy the waters…

…

He also made the mistake of thinking his own reaction is typical — or should be, anyway. It’s not like people are going to be open about how much they suffered, especially if others are standing around ready to accuse you of being weak because of it.

There’s more to it, and Marcotte explains it in more context, but you just wish Dawkins would figure out that sound bites aren’t his speciality. The “mild pedophilia” comment isn’t out of nowhere. Dawkins got in trouble for it last year when he talked about being fondled by his schoolteacher as a child and essentially saying it wasn’t a big deal. He later apologized for his insensitivity and tried to make things right. (Did he really think casual readers on Twitter would pick up on that reference?)

It’s also not the first time he’s gotten into trouble on Twitter for letting his own thoughts be his worst enemy. Last August, there was a huge kerfuffle after one of his comments suggested to some people that he was slamming the intelligence of Muslims:

The point is about religious oppression, not the intellectual capabilities of those who follow Islam, but how do you not realize your Tweet might be taken the wrong way by those who refuse to give you the benefit of the doubt?

I’m a fan of Richard Dawkins. I know he means well. I know exactly what he’s trying to say. But damn, it’s annoying having to defend him. More importantly, I shouldn’t have to! This is someone who once held a position promoting the “Public Understanding of Science.” He ought to be an expert in communicating ideas to the public.

On Twitter, though, where he assumes everyone will be charitable with their interpretations of his comments, he’s completely out of his league (or wildly naïve). Can someone please stage an intervention?

Mark Driscoll Admitted to Trolling His Own Church’s Online Forums 14 Years Ago & the Thread is Still Online. Whoops!

In 2006, Pastor Mark Driscoll published a book called Confessions of a Reformission Rev.: Hard Lessons from an Emerging Missional Church in which he admitted to secretly participating in his own church’s online forums:

At this time, our church also started an unmoderated discussion board on our website, called Midrash, and it was being inundated with postings by emerging-church type feminists and liberals. I went onto the site and posted as William Wallace II, after the great Scottish man portrayed in the movie Braveheart, and attacked those who were posting.

In the wake of all the bad publicity surrounding Mars Hill Church lately, with its cult-like structure and exodus of church members who are sharing their horror stories online, Driscoll and his allies are doing everything they can to scrub his past statements from their website.

Thankfully, the Internet doesn’t forget. And what “William Wallace II” had to say in 2000 is just incredible. All 140 pages of it. This isn’t breaking news — people have known about this for a while — but seeing it in the wake of what the world is learning about Driscoll just puts another nail in his coffin.

Here’s just a sampling from the first few posts he made:

We live in a completely pussified nation.

We could get every man, real man as opposed to pussified James Dobson knock-off crying Promise Keeping homoerotic worship loving mama’s boy sensitive emasculated neutered exact male replica evangellyfish, and have a conference in a phone booth. It all began with Adam, the first of the pussified nation, who kept his mouth shut and watched everything fall headlong down the slippery slide of hell/feminism when he shut his mouth and listened to his wife who thought Satan was a good theologian when he should have lead her and exercised his delegated authority as king of the planet. As a result, he was cursed for listening to his wife and every man since has been his pussified sit quietly by and watch a nation of men be raised by bitter penis envying burned feministed single mothers who make sure that Johnny grows up to be a very nice woman who sits down to pee.

…

I know many of the women will disagree, and they like Eve should not speak on this matter. And, many men will also disagree, which is further proof of the pussified epidemic having now become air born and universal.

Pussified men are inarguably legion.

Nothing short of an exorcism is needed.

…

… A man is free to knock boots with any sad hairy lump of clay desperate enough to climb in the sheets and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that total depravity is an understatement, but what the hell you want from me? Should we form some form of homo Promise Keepers so we can all climb into a stadium and hug each other and cry like damn junior high girls watching Dawson’s Creek. I’d tell you to kiss my ass, but I’m afraid you’d take me up on it.

…

Jesus was not a pussy. He did love the world. By, being beaten, scourged, whipped and generally having the flesh ripped off his back so he could carry a wooden cross. Bleeding and nearly naked nailed to a piece of wood and mocked, Jesus took his beating and took upon Himself the sins of the elect and the ensuing wrath of the Father. Does Jesus love us? Yes. How? As a manly man.

…

Now, female comrades, I would urge you sisters to step forward and testify.

Todays question is for you, give us the most pussified man you have ever known and tell us why you were sickened. Ever have a guy take you out “dutch”, ever have a guy cry when you dumped him, ever had a man so scared he took forever to ask you out, or maybe hasn’t even worked up the courage yet.

Testify!

…

I have been thinking and praying about this whole string and I am really sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. I am sorry if men of God had their inner child spanked. I feel terrible for all the tears you guys have shed over the pain of my words. Please forgive me. Please come to my house right now so I can hold you tightly in my arms and draw you to myself and whisper oh so sweetly in your ears…shut the hell up.

Turns out Troll Driscoll is really no different from the actual Driscoll. And that’s just from the first few pages of the document. These comments aren’t going away, no matter how hard the church’s leadership tries to make them disappear. Good luck reading the whole thing.

(via Dear Pastor Mark & Mars Hill: We Are Not Anonymous)

Well, What Did You Expect When a Soccer Star Named Jesus Said He’d Answer Questions on Twitter?

Manchester City, the English Premier League champions (a.k.a. a soccer team), decided to let fans ask questions of star player Jesus Navas. Navas later responded on video. Nice PR move. Fun for the fans. Lots of teams do something similar.

What made it even more entertaining was that the official hashtag for the Q&A was #AskJesus. (That had to be on purpose, right?)

As you can imagine, some fans had a little too much fun with that…

Navas never responded to those questions. Still, it’s fun to see people who likely treat soccer as a religion anyway take advantage of that setup

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

Conservative Christian Rep. John Fleming (R-LA): Stop Believing Anecdotes Because “That’s How Myths Come About”

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) is the legislator who, when discussing the possibility of Humanist chaplains in the military, responded by explaining the obvious consequences:

Rep. John Fleming

“This I think would make a mockery of the chaplaincy,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-La.). “The last thing in the world we would want to see was a young soldier who may be dying and they’re at a field hospital and the chaplain is standing over that person saying to them, ‘If you die here, there is no hope for you in the future.’”

He was wrong about that, of course, but the point is this guy is one of those Jesus-lovin’ Republicans that wants to promote his faith through the government. He opposes gay rights and once suggested that a same-sex commitment ceremony undermined our security.

That’s why I had to laugh when I heard what he said in opposition to medical marijuana:

“There is no evidence for marijuana as a treatment for seizures,” Rep. John Fleming, R-Louisiana, a physician, claimed during a congressional hearing last month. “We hear anecdotal stories, and that’s how myths come about.”

Stop believe anecdotal stories, says the Southern Baptist who thinks the Bible is true.

If only he would take his own advice…

By the way, there is reason to believe marijuana can help control seizures, though scientific studies haven’t been published yet. They may be anecdotes, but it’s far from a myth.

(via Reddit)

House Candidate Jody Hice: Electing Atheists to Congress Would Be “a Frightening Thing”

Jody Hice is the GOP nominee for an open U.S. House seat in Georgia and while his past comments are coming back to haunt him, this 2003 interview with the Trinity Broadcasting Network is a perfect reminder of what’s at stake in these elections.

Hice talks about how, if you don’t elect Christians to Congress, the result will be “disastrous.” Host Ben Kinchlow adds that Judeo-Christian principles are the only reason we have an orderly transition of power between leaders and that, without God, we’d have revolutions and people killing each other. Hice, not surprisingly, agrees completely.

This is someone who has a legitimate chance of becoming a member of Congress.

We should all be freaked out.

(via Right Wing Watch)

Friendly Atheist Podcast Episode 7: Seth Andrews, The Thinking Atheist

***Update***: We hear your frustration with the audio quality! We’re working on improving how the calls sound and the next batch of episodes should be of much better sound quality. Thanks for bearing with us

…

Our latest podcast guest is Seth Andrews, host of The Thinking Atheist podcast/website and author of Deconverted: A Journey from Religion to Reason:

Seth was not just a Christian for more than 30 years, he was a religious broadcaster and professional video producer as well. Since becoming an atheist, he has put those talents to use on his YouTube channel (if you haven’t seen his videos, go watch. They’re inspiring and beautiful). His podcast of the same name is currently the most popular show on Blog Talk Radio.

We spoke with Seth about his late-to-the-party deconversion, why listeners connect with him so well, and how Christian radio compares with secular podcasting.

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, 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!

Whoa! National Catholic Reporter Praises Obama’s LGBT Nondiscrimination Order

President Obama took a huge step earlier this month when he signed an executive order barring anti-LGBT discrimination in workplaces that receive federal contracts. In response, the National Catholic Reporter took a surprising stance:

Obama’s exemption was especially contentious among faith groups because it did not expand religious exemptions (though he did respect a Bush-era executive order allowing religious groups “some leeway” in hiring and firing on religious grounds). That’s why it’s so refreshing that in a staff editorial, NCR praised the executive order loudly and proudly, a far cry from the expected (and observed) Catholic response.

For example, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the new rule was “unprecedented and extreme” and should be opposed. The Reporter editorial openly dissented:

Sentences like “With the stroke of a pen, it lends the economic power of the federal government to a deeply flawed understanding of human sexuality, to which faithful Catholics and many other people of faith will not assent” show a willful misunderstanding of the contemporary discussion around human sexuality. The statement will not advance the bishops’ cause beyond a small band of true believers intent on finding another front for the culture wars.

The editorial also called out the Conference for being blatantly un-Christian in its homophobic response, which so many Christians are afraid to do:

More distressing, however, is the failure of the nation’s bishops to reflect deeply upon their own teaching. The church clearly distinguishes between homosexual persons and homosexual acts or inclinations. We have problems with that distinction on other grounds, but think it bears on the issue at hand.

So this isn’t quite an acceptance of “homosexual acts,” but rather an assertion that an employee’s value has nothing to do with, and should be considered separately from, their personal life. This could be interpreted as a call for a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” manner of hiring, but the later parts of this article convinced me otherwise.

Along those same lines, here’s my favorite part of the piece:

A religiously affiliated organization does not hire an inclination or an act, it hires a person, and the church has affirmed, repeatedly, that the homosexual person is to be loved and is not to be unjustly discriminated against. On what basis, then, should we decline to abide by a government regulation that we not discriminate against LGBT people in hiring? This is not just about legal or political strategy, but about being true to what the church actually teaches, instead of joining the latest culture war battle.

And regarding the role of religious exemptions in workplace discrimination, the writers here actually seem to understand that LGBT people aren’t as scary and threatening as some of their fellow Catholics make us out to be:

A Catholic ministry should be able to employ people who advance the religious identity of that ministry, and no group should be forced to hire someone whose presence is a counter-witness. But we all know far too many wonderful gay and lesbian Catholics who are already engaged in ministry to believe there is any threat, per se, from this new nondiscrimination rule.

Granted, the last paragraph of the piece does make clear that some members of the Church are worried about its reputation as LGBT issues take the forefront of political and social discussion, probably a motivating factor for writing this editorial. And on principle, I’m hesitant when anyone uses the phrase “culture wars”:

At risk, rather, is the church’s reputation by continuing to look like the infantry in the culture wars. Surely, the words and gestures of Pope Francis suggest a different, less litigious approach to the culture than that advocated by the U.S. bishops’ conference. We hope the culture wars will end, but if not, and in this battle, NCR is happy to stand with its LGBT brothers and sisters.

So NCR’s take on workplace equality is at least partially driven by its desire to keep up appearances. That’s a given, but it doesn’t negate this article’s affirmation that LGBT people are not inherently dangerous, predatory, or toxic, as so many other religious groups perpetuate. The next step I’d like to see is a mainstream Christian publication openly advocating for the hiring of LGBT people — not to save face, but to see firsthand how valuable diversity is to any organization or workplace.

I am rarely pleased by the things I read in Christian publications (on the rare occasion that that happens), but this is a welcome exception. It shows you can hold traditional conservative beliefs without being an asshole. Take note, Bachmanns.

Ask Richard: Atheist with Terminal Cancer Faces Several Decisions

Dear Richard,

Two days ago, I was diagnosed with brain cancer for the 3rd time in 14 years. To make a long story short, my cancer has evolved from a grade II Astrocytoma, to the most aggressive form, grade IV Glioblastoma Multiforme. Glioblastoma is incurable and I probably won’t survive past 15 months.

My family is Lutheran and very conservative. Both of my parents disapprove of gay people, atheists, and non-Christians, so telling them I’m atheist on top of my recent diagnosis, and eldest sister’s recent death will absolutely crush them. Now that the rest of my family has been told of my fate, the ‘I will pray for you’ s and the constant church visits are non-stop. My parents are trying to push herbal treatments on me now and they are trying to get me into the Burzynski Clinic, which is a gigantic scam towards cancer patients. They are also trying to plan a trip to someplace like Hawaii, but I don’t exactly want that. My also atheist brother is trying to help me with everything, but he is scared that he will probably tip off my parents about us.

I need help with a lot of things:

. Should I or should I not tell them about my atheism?
. Should I start college this fall?
. How should I ask for a non-church, non-Lutheran funeral?
. Should I tell the rest of my family?
. Should I accept treatment (survival without treatment is 3-4 months)
. How am I supposed to die with grace?

The last one is most important to me. I don’t want to die with medicines constantly being shoved into my mouth and trips all around the world. I just want to spend time with my family like I normally would: Sitting together around a dinner table, making each other laugh and making google eyes at my brother while we’re supposed to be at church.

Thank you for everything,
The Cancer Chick

Dear Cancer Chick,

In the midst of what is happening to you, your consideration for the feelings and well-being of others is remarkable and commendable. Your selflessness clearly shows that you are a gift to all those who are lucky enough to know you. There is so much about you in this letter that I admire.

People often ask counselors to help them make a decision. They have what they want to do, but they are concerned, as you are, about the effect their choice will have on others. They want to take care of themselves, but they don’t want to be selfish. Sometimes it’s as if they don’t think they really have the right to act in their own best interest. The counselor cannot make the decision for them, but to help them loosen up their impasse so they can consider all their options more fully, sometimes the counselor will “give them permission” to take care of themselves. That permission is often the thing they were not sure they had.

That’s what I’m going to do several times here. You have the right to do whatever is right for you, whatever helps you, whatever comforts and supports you. From your good character that I see in your letter, I think you will be able to find a way to have the essential parts of those things, and yet not cross over a line into unkind selfishness.

I’ll now attempt to respond to your specific questions. I admire and respect your straight-forward and unblinking acceptance of your reality, so I will honor that with straight-forward and unblinking replies. Please do not mistake my rational treatment of these very challenging questions for coldness or a lack of caring for you. On the contrary, my caring has made this the most difficult letter I have ever answered.

Should I or should I not tell them about my atheism?

I get this question often. It comes down to weighing the cost and benefit of telling versus the cost and benefit of keeping it a secret, and there are many situational factors to balance. Sometimes the atheist’s parent or grandparent is elderly and has little time left, so that becomes one of the factors to consider. In your case, yours is the time that is limited, so you have to imagine how telling them will affect your relationship with them for the time you have remaining. If, as you described, you want to simply enjoy their company, sitting around the dinner table, making each other laugh, then the upset that you anticipate they would have about your atheism would probably interfere with that.

Should I start college this fall?

Again, do whatever makes you happy and satisfied. If learning something in college is one of those things, and if cost is not a serious obstacle, and if that gives your time remaining, whether it’s 3 months, or 15 months, or a lifetime the meaning, purpose, and pleasure that you want, then go for it. If, as time passes, you encounter difficulties from the illness that make it more hardship than satisfaction, then it’s also completely okay to drop out and spend more time as you described with your family. Your situation frees you from having to answer the annoyingly ubiquitous question, “What are you going to do with your education?” Education can be a valid goal in and of itself, whether it’s one class or a degree.

How should I ask for a non-church, non-Lutheran funeral?

You might consider a memorial service instead. Funerals focus on the death of the person. The body is present, the tone is usually somber, and behavior is very formal. They’re usually held in funeral homes or churches which have the facilities for dealing with the remains. Sermons and prayers by clergy are expected, and the proceedings seem to be incomplete if religion is not a central part.

On the other hand, memorial services emphasize the life of the person. The body is not present, but often many photographs and objects are displayed that refer to what the deceased loved and cared about in life. These gatherings can be held in a wide variety of pleasant places. They’re also much less expensive than a funeral, and when you are considering the well-being of your relatives, sparing them that extra stressor is a nice gift to give them.

There’s usually one person designated to oversee the proceedings, a sort of master of ceremonies, and very often many people take turns to speak, either with prepared remarks or extemporaneously. The best of such statements that I’ve heard have expressed what each person gained from knowing the deceased, and what they want to have about that person live on in their own behavior. It’s not mandatory that everyone be cheerful; they’re certainly also free to express their sadness. All feelings are permitted to be felt and expressed. People are also free to express religious ideas if they wish, but that is not a requirement. The M.C., who should be a strong and assertive person, can make it clear that people should please keep their remarks to a limited amount of time, so no one dominates the whole thing. You can specify that you prefer clergy not be present, so that they don’t take over the show. If a minister must be there for the feelings of your parents, for instance, you can make it clear that he must be a guest like any of the others, and not the “star of the show.”

Since money is not being spent on a funeral, people could be given the opportunity to make modest donations to a charity or cause that is meaningful to you. In this way they can in a tangible way honor and support the values that you practiced in your life.

You can tell your family that this is the kind of observance you want because you want those of your friends who are not very religious to feel included, and because you simply like the positivism about it. This way you can insist on whatever you want without revealing your atheism, if you choose to keep that private. Look up ideas for memorial services, and ask friends for their ideas and advice. This can be an opportunity for you to connect with people on levels that might otherwise feel too awkward without a project to collaborate on.

Write down your ideas, and organize it into a plan. Having basic things planned and spelled out on paper will help to lighten the burden of those people who will be making it happen, so they can also experience and express their several emotions during that time.

Should I tell the rest of my family?

I’m assuming that you mean tell them about your atheism. Again it’s a cost/benefit and a risk/benefit assessment. When and if your extended family learns about it, there is a chance that your parents will eventually find out. The more people who know a secret, the more possibilities for a leak. So if you’d rather your parents not find out before you die so you don’t have to endure that upset, then it’s probably best to leave it quiet. This also depends on who in your family, if anyone, is scrupulously discrete, which is sadly a rare virtue. If you would like specific people to know after you die, you could perhaps write down what you want to tell them in a letter to be delivered at a prearranged time. Clear this with your brother, since he would probably be the trusted holder of such letters, and also because there is a good possibility that it will bring about his being revealed as an atheist too, even if that is inadvertent.

Concerning your brother and his fear that he might tip off your parents about your shared atheism: Talk to him gently about his fear, and about what emotions might push him to be indiscrete. Helping him to express to you whatever inner pressure he has about this can help relieve that pressure so he can be the skillful and reliable “secret comrade” you need him to be, and that he wants to be.

Should I accept treatment (survival without treatment is 3-4 months)

This is another cost/benefit decision, considering length versus quality. If treatment will give you fifteen months, then you need to talk very frankly with your doctors, and insist that they tell you very frankly what you will experience without treatment for that short time, and what you will experience with treatment for that longer time. I have known people who have chosen either option. There is a difference between prolonging life and prolonging dying. There are no objective criteria for deciding where that line is drawn; it is a unique and personal differentiation for each person.

With family members pulling in different directions about how to help you, it’s important that you take steps now to retain control over your medical care. People in the grip of anxiety and grief sometimes intrude into what ought to be considered your prerogatives, and they can disregard your stated wishes unless you enforce them. You don’t want to become a rope in a tug-of-war between people who are focused on what they want for you, rather than on what you want for yourself.

To protect yourself from that, you should draw up a Durable Medical Power of Attorney that spells out what general kinds of medical treatment you want and don’t want, and what specific life-prolonging measures are acceptable and unacceptable to you. You should also designate someone you trust who will be able and willing to make medical decisions and other care decisions on your behalf if you become incapable, including, according to the dictates of your state’s laws, what would result in the immediate ending of your life. This person must be strong enough to follow your wishes in the face of family members who have their own ideas and who are at the effect of strong feelings.

Ask your doctor(s) if they can provide you a Medical Power of Attorney form. If you have a hospital you have been using, hospitals often have social workers on staff who can help patients with many issues about their care and their legal rights. He or she might be able to help you decide what you want to specify in that document. Have several valid copies, one on file at the hospital, one you keep handy, and one for your designated executor of the document.

If you don’t already have one, you should also draw up a will. It doesn’t matter if you have a lot of money and property, or nearly nothing. Get it done. It will relieve people from the discomfort of having to decide what to do with things you leave behind, and the resentment that such decisions often cause. You can hand write your own, which, depending on the laws of your state, is valid and binding without being notarized or witnessed. A store-bought form with witnesses and notary is a little better, and of course the best is a will drawn up by an attorney competent in family or estate law.

How am I supposed to die with grace?

First of all, you don’t have to meet anyone else’s expectations of how you’re “supposed” to die. Many people in your position do what they can to die with dignity, or as much of that as they can preserve. Often the biggest difficulty for them is, ironically, the people who love them, and who take care of their own needs by doing things “for” the dying person.

In Christianity, the word “grace” has a variety of meanings, including “forgiveness for the undeserving.” As an atheist, you need none of that nonsense. What you do need are advocates who will help you carry out your wishes for whatever kind of care you want and need during this time, and whatever kind you don’t want. Well-informed allies can help you to be assertive and to insist on what you choose. Again, you have complete permission to feel and to express whatever feelings flow through you, and to choose whatever path that is right for you, as long or as short, as hard or as easy, as complicated or as simple as it may be. And at any time, you can change your mind. This is your life-and-death. You have the right to manage it, and you don’t have to apologize.

I wonder if by “grace” you might also mean something more like gracefulness, equanimity, peace, completeness, being resolved, something like that. Talking with a trusted and close friend might help, and perhaps also a counselor, someone who is more objective but still able to empathize, and who can accurately reflect your own thoughts and feelings back to you. That counselor could also possibly help you with your relationships with your parents and other family members. You would need a counselor who is strictly secular. If you don’t have someone in mind, perhaps the Secular Therapist Project can help you find a provider who will not intrude with any religious ideas into your consultations.

People in your situation often find that what they once considered to be important things become unimportant, and what they once neglected as not very important become paramount. Stating “I love you” is very often one of those newly important things. Getting those expressions of love thoroughly communicated to all the right people can bring at least a sense of completion if not serenity.

Cancer Chick, I would rather call you Courageous Chick. Your cancer does not define you; much larger traits define you. These include your compassion for your parents, your love and trust of your brother, your instinct for fairness in rejecting the previous generation’s prejudices, your rationality as expressed by your eschewing treatments that are not based on evidence, and also, and it is not a cliché, your courage to look life and death in the eye, and to treat it as a challenge for you to respond in whatever ways are best both for yourself and for all those concerned. Don’t worry that those responses aren’t perfect. No one expects that. No one has ever achieved that. Just find as good a balance as you can, and rest in the knowledge that you did what you could.

Please feel free to write again if you wish. There are several hundred strangers reading your letter who now care about you just like friends.

I admire you very much. I wish you peace.

Richard

You may send your questions for Richard to . Please keep your letters concise. They may be edited. There is a very large number of letters. I am sorry if I am unable to respond.