So tomorrow morning, between the hours of 730-930AM, I will be attending a private prayer breakfast with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

I help with a small group here on the University of Washington campus known as the Secular Student Union, and one of my local contacts informed me that the Dalai Lama would be coming to Seattle for a 5 day event. Through one of her contacts, I was invited as an ambassador of the Humanist/Atheist/Agnostic/Freethinking youth of Seattle. It’s a small event, unadvertised, and should be quite intimate.

We had to submit to full background checks, and the security tomorrow morning will be heinous, but it will definitely be worth it.

I’ll give a report tomorrow.

Zombie Jesus’ words and acts are recorded in one of the apocryphal books (books which were not included in the New Testament by the Catholic Church), the “Book of Brains”. The most famous part of the “Book of Brains” is the “Parable of the Brains”, in which Zombie Jesus spoke unto the assembled masses: “Braaaiiins…. braaaiiinnnss… braaaaiinss!!” (in the original Greek of the Gospel, “μυαλό…. μυααααλό…. μυααααλό!!!”).

So I suppose that it’s high time that I post this on my own blog.

I was contacted through a mutual friend by the man who runs FriendlyAtheist.com a month or two ago. Apparently, he had somehow heard the story of my de-conversion, and decided that it was fascinating enough to grace his front page. I was quite honored, as this is a blog I read daily and highly respect, and submitted my story promptly.

Here it is - Leaving Mormonism: Michael’s Story

“The word Catholic is actually a derivative of cat lick i.e. ‘to lick a cat’. This has led many to speculate that the pope is addicted to kitten huffing, though he is on the record as saying he ‘never inhaled.’”

Dear Pope,

I suppose that at this point, I ought to be numb to the incredible ignorance and bigotry of the Catholic monarchy. After a history of violence and oppression that differs from Nazi Germany only in its lack of brevity and the willful ignorance of the recent regimes, this sort of thing is what I ought to have come to expect. Alas, I am still shocked when the crass dogmatism of Catholicism is made clear.

I refer to, of course, your recent statements regarding atheism.

Though I think you are actually perfectly aware of the following, I should like to present some of the many deceptions and outright lies now included in your “encyclical:”

1. Atheism originated during the French and Communist revolutions.
   1. This is, to say the least, historically laughable. Atheism has been around for millenia, with recorded ‘atheist’ sentiments in ancient Greece. Of course, just as a Catholic would not recognize a gnostic Christian from 200AD, we would probably not recognize atheists from previous centuries. Of course, if Catholics were well versed in history, they probably wouldn’t remain Catholic, and you know that.
   2. Atheism did indeed see an increase during the French and Communism revolutions. This period, stretching from the late 1700s to the late 1800s, is also historically known as “the enlightenment.” In 1790, France renounced the authority of the church in its government… seems the monarchy is still sour about that one. By the way, this might just be a funny coincidence, but atheism saw a significant rise in Europe at around the same time that the Catholic church stopped roasting ‘heretics’ - the French Revolution took place from 1789 - 1799. The Catholic Church did not officially condemn the use of torture until Pope Pius VII in 1816.
   3. This statement is highly fallacious, and intentionally misleading. The reader is meant to associate atheism with the highly bloody and violent French Revolution and evil Communists. Neither revolution, however, was conducted in the name of or solely for the propagation of atheism, contrary to the crusades, the Inquisition, and numerous other evils endorsed with massive Catholic rubber stamps. As I recall, Nazi Germany also had the support of the Catholic church, which (still) hasn’t condemned Hitler and his actions. You knew that, though, from your days as a Hitler Youth.
   4. Bad politics, Popey. You could have just inadvertently pissed off all of China. Of course, China probably won’t care all that much. It’s not like you were googling Tianamnen Square or anything.
2. “Atheist ideologies,” such as Marxism, that claim that humans must establish their own social justice have been proven wrong by history.
   1. What, like the country and ideology behind this godless document?
   2. But Popey, if you condemn all social justice, you’d have to condemn all capitalist and democratic governments, including most of the governments of western Europe, and… Italy. Oh, wait.
   3. Perhaps you’d like to advocate a system of order and justice owned and operated by Thy Uptightness and his Holy Member? It was done once. Those times are now referred to as the “Dark Ages.” Back then, little boys knew how to keep their mouths shut too.
3. Atheism is the cause of some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history.
   1. Well, unless you count the Crusades. Or the Inquisition. Or the Holocaust. Or the witch hunts, 9/11, the apartheid, genocide in Sudan, WWI, WWII, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, the War of 1812, country music, and so on. In fact, could you please name a case where atheism is the direct cause of cruelty and violation of justice? Humans are human, I’m sure there’s at least one out there.
   2. Still hoping that I’ll just brush the whole Medieval era under the rug?
   3. Atheists do a great deal of good. We could do the good Catholic thing and burn the heretics at the stake, but then we would be lacking Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, Ayn Rand, Salmon Rushdie, Kurt Vonnegut, Woody Allen, George Carlin, Adam Carolla, Sir Ian McKellen, Billy Joel, Diderot, Voltaire, Bertrand Russell, Richard Feynman, Alan Turing, Linus Torvalds, Steve Wozniak, among many others.

Why? Why atheists? Is it because we pose a legitimate threat? Is it because you know we aren’t going to sue or suicide bomb you? Are we easy scapegoats? After all, we wouldn’t want you slandering something truly evil in this world, such as Scientology. They have big lawyers with sharp nasty teeth.

I chalk it up to sexual frustration. Revoke the celibacy thing, please… for the good of all boys under age 12.

Sincerely,

An American Atheist.

The local missionaries set up a table in front of the HUB today, singing hymns, handing out pass-along cards, and generally pestering whoever happened to be so unfortunate to not be engaged in conversation right when they walked by. I happened to be one of these people.

Leaving the church was the single most difficult experience in my life, bar none. I lost everything I had, and gained precious little to replace it with. I am conflicted because I do not want to bring that level of pain to any other human life, but at the same time, I strongly believe that religion of all sorts is a destructive (or at least inhibitive) force in our world. I generally make a point of abstaining from trying to “convert” anyone to my opinions for that very reason.

Imagine my discomfort when approached by a representative of the same sect that so recently tore me apart.

I remained polite. Mostly.

He approached me asking my thoughts on the subject of religion. I gave him fair warning that he was asking the wrong fellow, as I am a recent apostate. In retrospect, I probably would have been better off had I stated that I was gay, but alas.

He then began to ask in feigned bewilderment what may have caused this oh-so-evil choice of mine. “I read too much. Are you from Utah, bychance?”

He replied that he wasn’t, but that he was from Arizona. That was all that I needed.

“You are from Snowflake, then. You have some level of confidence here, so I would assume that you have been on the mission for over one year, meaning that you are 20 years old. You were raised in a Mormon household, where your parents taught you from birth that the church is what it says it is, yet you had close relatives that strayed from the church. This emboldened and strengthened you in your youth because you saw how fragile faith can be. You attended and graduated seminary in high school, and you didn’t date much - you were waiting for your sacred companion, whom you would meet after you return home from your mission. You attended BYU for either a semester or a full year, where you lived in the dorms and opened your mission call with a great number of friends. You were disappointed at first to be called to somewhere as un-exotic as Seattle, Washington, but soon reconciled as you realized that it was where ‘the Lord’ wanted you to go. At this point on your mission, you have been approached with some people bearing anti-mormon facts and literature. You dismissed their claims as Satan-inspired lies and dismissed them as enemies of the church who want nothing more than to destroy everything that you hold dear. Nonetheless, you did hear some points they said which were curious to you. You asked your leader what his opinion of the points were, and took his opinion as solid evidence that they were nothing but slanderous lies. You are now looking forward to fulfilling your two-year commission and returning to BYU, where you hope to find that eternal companion and raise little missionaries of your own. Am I close?”

“…how did you know I was from Snowflake?”

The rest, apparently, didn’t phase him.

It didn’t take me long to realize a couple of things:

- He felt that he had a monopoly on truth, enlightenment, and wisdom. I, who turned away from the church, am clearly foolish and ignorant. After all, if I knew what he knows, I’d be Mormon, right? This spiritual arrogance was pointed out to me when I was Mormon, but I scoffed at it then. This was the first time I saw the phenomenon from the other side.

- He believed that anything critical of the church was flawed because he felt the church was true. For some reason, this circular logic is quite pervasive in religion

- He thought that he would be able to dissuade me from my current convictions if he could prove to me that the church gives you warm fuzzies, which I must have never felt before.

But the one realization that really shocked me was about myself. I didn’t want to de-convert him to atheism. I didn’t desire to destroy his faith or his religion.

My sole desire was to show him that, while he may strongly disagree with it, my position is a legitimate one. My points are reasonable and have their basis.

I imagine that these feelings arose from my conflicts with the mormons I care about.

I knew a mormon man back home whom I respected while I was a member, and grew significant respect for as I was leaving the church. He is the father of a past girlfriend of mine, and one of the most intelligent men I know. He recognized that the church has a great number of fundamental problems which are not easily answered. He studied these things quite thoroughly, and while his heart kept him from being completely unbiased, tried to remain impartial. He is an active member of the church, but can still understand and respect those who leave it.

This is not the case, usually. I remember speaking to one friend in particular about it. She asked me why it was, exactly, that I left. I explained in no unequivocal terms for the better part of an hour the things I found, the conclusions I came to, and the choices I made. It felt incredible to have her listen and apparently understand my concerns. However, at the end of the hour, I asked her opinion. She answered with a succinct, “I think that you left so that you could sin and not feel guilty about it.” I cannot express my frustration at that point.

I heard that same sentiment expressed while I was in the church - so-and-so read anti, left the church, and now he/she is an amoral party hound who attacks the church with vengeance.

The belief that apostates leave the church due to sin or the desire to do so is dreadfully common among the faithful. It is also insulting and highly frustrating to those of us who have.

I did not leave the church so I could feed my vices. I had never even tasted alcohol before deciding to leave the church. I did not anticipate having sex for quite some time. I never did drugs, hated cigarettes, and watched plenty of R rated movies when I was mormon anyway.

Even if I did have great desire for these so-called carnal lusts, I’d have to be a complete fool to trade my eternal salvation for a bottle I’ve never tasted and a fun evening. The very idea that a person of any intelligence would do such a thing is quite laughable. Yet, this is the common belief.

It could be that no believing member wants to allow for the possibility that an apostate might have legitimate concerns, for a multitude of reasons.

I just hope that my family one day understands the true motivation for my choices. I don’t think that the odds are in my favor.

Contrary to popular belief, the covering of the Muslim woman is not oppression but a liberation from the shackles of male scrutiny and the standards of attractiveness. In Islam, a woman is free to be who she is inside, and immuned from being portrayed as sex symbol and lusted after. Islam exalts the status of a woman by commanding that she “enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man ” (Nadvi, 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life.
- Liberation by the Veil

It’s true! Did you know that rape only happens here in the heathen western states? How often do you hear about rape in the Middle East?

There’s a reason for that.

Apparently, there’s an addendum in the Shari’a stating that if you are raped, you’d best keep your mouth shut, bitch. The addendum in question:

And she that is raped, may she be silent always, so as not to bring shame to her rapists, for Allah knows that deep, deep down in the heart (sic) of a woman, she knows that she really wants it anyway. I mean, c’mon, we all know when they’re not submitting to Allah, they love submitting to their master. Besides, showing both eyes like they do, you know they’re asking for it. Therefore, Allah commands that all women, should they be raped, shall STFU before him.
- Wasalta I-dharwa*

According to a recent article on CNN.com, a victim of gang rape in the Kingdom has been now sentenced to 200 lashes and a six month prison sentence. Her crime? Speaking out about the rape. Now, this might be understandable if the Kingdom and its judges are mortally afraid of bad press - speaking out could be seen as trying to garner negative attention to the country in the international media.

Oh wait, she was already sentenced to the tune of 90 lashes simply for being raped under Islamic law.

Of course, this is shocking and disgusting to us enlightened westerners. “Look at those backwards sand-niggers, with their silly and oppressive laws! I’m so glad I’m a good God-fearing Christian/Jew.”

What we don’t realize is that if Christians and Jews actually followed the law as defined by the bible, they would do the exact same thing… worse, in fact. Yes, those crazy Muslims actually are more lenient than Christians and Jews ought to be:

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24

Whereas a Muslim woman might only be lashed, a Christian or Jewish woman must be stoned, and I don’t mean that in the fun way. The same rule of law applies to an animal that has been raped, as well. Of course, this doesn’t happen in our modern society, but according to the “holy” babble, it should! The only reason there aren’t routine stonings of rape victims at the county fair grounds is that Christians and Jews don’t adhere to their own scripture. Instead, upon reading said verses, mumble to themselves that they’re silly, archaic, and in the Old Testament. Good point.

How can Christians get away with writing off Old Testament law while simultaneously holding aloft the entirety of the Bible as the ultimate guide for morality? This is not nearly the only case of reprehensible verses in the so-called “good news.” Many argue that the laws of the Old Testament were somehow fulfilled when Christ came to the earth. Why then, pray tell, do we still preach from and teach our children about it? If Christians had any decency, they’d confine anything from Genesis to Micah to the history books, where they belong. They don’t, and here’s why:

Why Christians refuse to condemn the Old Testament:

1. It contains Genesis. Whereas the rest of the Old Testament might be rife with scientific errancy (God has the strength of a unicorn, in case you were ever wondering), Genesis isn’t. God actually did create the world in 6 days (amazing, considering he hadn’t created the sun until day 3, which is necessary to define a “day”), making evolution an obvious fabrication.
   
2. They know that the New Testament is just as silly, so they would have to condemn it as well.
3. They would have to admit that their morality comes from somewhere other than a holy book.
4. No harm, no foul - nobody actually reads their Bibles anyway, except for the verses their preachers hand-pick
5. What else would they teach in Sunday School? All those warm fuzzy stories about Christ get boring after awhile. Kids want to hear about Joshua and his armies and their “scorched earth” campaign through Canaan, or how Abraham nobly nearly slaughtered his son.
6. There’s money to be made.

Jon Stewart has won me over.