I Reached My Fundraising Goal - THANK YOU!

"Zombi", the print for "Z" entry in the first book that
will be published by my small press, Cats A-Z. Seems
that at least for me, black cats are good luck!

So much for Friday the 13th being bad luck; I just achieved my Indiegogo campaign fundraising goal - in only 28 hours! Woo hoo!

Thank you to everyone who has contributed and shared information about this campaign!

THE FOCUS NOW: 

While I've cleared the first hurtle, I still need to raise additional funds to enact my business plan. I've applied for an interest-free, crowd-sourced small business loan and am currently waiting for approval to launch that campaign. Any funds I raise through Indiegogo that exceed $2000 go to reduce the amount I have to borrow to make this small press a reality. And that increases my press's chances for long-term success!

The Indiegogo campaign runs through April 24th. Help me keep spreading the word. Also, check in on my art blog Words On Woodcuts where I'll be posting eight original woodcut art cards as thank-you gifts for all the funders.

Charlie Hebdo, Understanding, and Forgiveness

Today we found out that the first cover of Charlie Hebdo appearing after the violent decimation of its staff features a caricature of the prophet Muhammed, a tear down his cheek, holding up a "Je Suis Charlie" sign. Above the caricature appear the words "tout est pardonné" (Everything is forgiven.) 

I feel tremendously moved by this cover choice, as I think it so poignantly addresses both of the serious issues staring us in the face in the aftermath of these killings. First, the issue of free speech (which just about everyone, even hypocrites, seem to acknowledge and claim to defend at the moment.) And second, the connection between racial and ethnic disadvantage of non-Westerners in the Western world and Islamic radicalization (a highly complicated and sensitive topic that most people seem to either horribly oversimplify or avoid entirely.)  

Guilaine Kinourani thoughtfully addresses this second issue through her personal experiences as a French woman of African descent in her article "Hatred breeds hatred": Charlie Hebdo, marginalization, and terrorism. She writes: 

"Is it not possible to hold both the position that the Charlie Hebdo killings were absolutely abhorrent and unjustifiable acts, whilst also calling for increased attention to be paid to the marginalisation of entire generations of citizens and its complex link to Islamic radicalisation and fundamentalism in France and elsewhere?"

Racism and ethnic bias are pervasive and breed resentment (or at least defensiveness) from many who suffer (and watch their loved-ones suffer) the consequences. Mass shootings are frequently perpetrated by white shooters, but those are regarded as lone nutjobs, not representatives of an entire religious or ethnic group. We don't see attacks on white men and white-owned businesses after such events, but anti-Arabism is real, and it becomes worse after events such as the Charlie Hebdo shooting, just as Muslim Americans (as well as Sikhs and anyone else who might of been perceived as Muslim) suffered increased discrimination and attacks after 9-11. Even in the small, suburban Quaker school I worked at in 2008, I heard a child in 7th grade casually declare that the United States should "Bomb Iraq and Iran until they are all dead" to solve the problem of Islamist terrorism. 

Howard Dean caught flack for insisting that we stop referring to violent Islamists as "Muslim terrorists", saying: 

"I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am. I mean, they have no respect for anybody else's life, that's not what the Koran says." 

I agree with the general sentiment and applaud Dean for speaking out in defense of the vast majority of Muslims who are just as peace-loving as anyone else. 

Finding the most appropriate language, that is accurate yet not racially-charged is difficult. Dean is using "radicals", which I don't like because it's so vague it sounds euphemistic, and also not all people with "radical" views are violent. I try to stick to using the term "Islamist" which has been designated to specifically refer to those who use or support the use of violence to establish their own interpretation of Islam and sharia law.  

In 2011, Charlie Hebdo's editor Stephane Charbonnier or Charb (who was killed in this month's shooting) expressed a similar sentiment to Dean. He responded to a  fire-bombing of Charlie Hebdo by Islamists in retribution over another cover depicting Muhammad, calling the perpetrators "stupid people who don't know what Islam is"  and "idiots who betray their own religion". These statements defend Islam the religion by asserting that a truer adherence to that faith would not result in a violent attack on an anti-racist, left-wing satirical newspaper. 

I see many parallels between Islamist and Christian fundamentalists (and I'm not the only one), including the targeting of liberal secularists, who might superficially look like the enemy because our worldview and values seem so counter to a socially conservative religious perspective. But liberal secularists are not the enemy, because as much as our ilk might mock and satirize conservative religiosity, all mockery and criticism is done with the assumption that pluralism and freedom will always remain part of the equation. 

Meanwhile, the real causes of suffering-that-breeds-extremism goes unacknowledged. For example, divorce rates are highest in the Bible belt. This is most likely the result of growing economic instability, especially in more rural communities, leaving so many would-be-bread-winning men under-employed and demoralized, and so many women with children dependent on welfare and charity. And yet frequently feminism and marriage equality activism is blamed for the "decline of marriage." These are serious socio-economic problems and real human suffering. Alas, the blame is misplaced. 

It is so appropriate that this week's cover of Charlie Hebdo will depict a Muhammed who weeps for and stands with the slain journalists, under a statement of forgiveness. The editors offer a hand in the spirit of brotherly and sisterly love, but in a way they know will be taken as offensive by some, because it is the only way to do so in a manner that is also true to themselves. 

There is a French proverb that I have accepted as truth since the first time I heard it, years ago. It says, Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner (If all were understood, all would be forgiven.) 

Or in the words of the Dresden Dolls:  

Talking to my Kid About Gun Violence

When the Sandy Hook shooting happened last year, adults were discussing it and the topic of gun violence and gun control a lot, and so it was inevitable that my then-four-year-old daughter would pick some of that information up.

I learned her interest when she told me that she wanted a gun for Christmas so that she could shoot and kill me. Then she laughed, as if this were a funny joke.

What followed was me explaining the concept of death to my kid for the first time. What ultimately hit home for her was the idea that once someone is dead, she would never see them again. They were gone, forever. She started crying at the very thought of it, and as much as it pained me to see her suffer like that, I was glad that she was beginning to understood that real violence can have real horrible consequences.

My thinking is that if a kid is old enough to play-act scenes of violence, to watch cartoons that act out violence (often with no consequences), he or she is old enough to at least have a cursory understanding of what that parallels in reality.

I found myself thinking about this today as we drove home from her school, and she noticed the field of t-shirts on crosses at the Lutheran Seminary, each individual shirt in memorial to a specific victim of illegal gun violence in Philadelphia. My daughter, who has just turned five, asked about the shirts.

In simple terms, I told her the truth: "Those shirts are for people who were killed by guns in our city. So we remember them, and so people stop shooting each other." My voice cracked as I said it. At a stop light, I turned to examine one shirt more closely; its victim's age, 2 years. My daughter's voice peeped up, "Don't feel sad, mama. It'll be okay."

“I think it is unnatural to think that there is such a thing as a blue-sky, white-clouded happy childhood for anybody. Childhood is a very, very tricky business of surviving it. Because if one thing goes wrong or anything goes wrong, and usually something goes wrong, then you are compromised as a human being. You’re going to trip over that for a good part of your life.” -Maurice Sendak 

Adults so often try to hide these hard realities from kids, but how can we hide what is right there, out in the open for all to see? How can we hide what we are discussing constantly? How can we stop our voices from cracking? Trying to hide the ugliness of the world seems much worse, as kids aren't that stupid, and they will at least know that something is up. Or worse, they'll grow up only associating guns with a bunch of romantic, fictional imagery.

I suppose the retort to that might be something such as, But what if it gives kids nightmares? What if they can't sleep at night for fear that they will be shot by some violent criminal?

So far my daughter hasn't expressed any such fears for her own safety, and she sleeps just fine. I'm the one sometimes kept up by the sound of gunshots in the distance, and haunted by a t-shirt in memorial to a toddler.

Thoughts After Reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert

Tomorrow I'll begin taking a free adult education class called Extinction: Life On Earth and Human Impact (offered through the Wagner Free Institute for Science.) Because I'm the sort of person who likes to spend my precious-little free time learning nerdy nature/science stuff, regardless of how depressing it might be. 

A few days ago I finished one of the recommended readings, The Sixth Extinction by journalist Elizabeth Kolbert, published earlier this year. Though it covers a sobering topic, it is an excellent book, and I highly recommend it to all lovers or nature and all those with even a passing curiosity about the nitty gritty details of how humans are transforming the global ecosystem. 

The best thing about this book is the way it is organized. Each chapter zooms in on either the plight of a species either already extinct, or on the brink of doom. For example, the Great Auk, hunted to extinction before the turn of the 20th century, or the Panamanian Golden Frog, one of many frog species which were plentiful only a decade ago, but are now critically endangered. 

Kolbert did her footwork. She traveled around the world to witness the places where extinctions happened and are happening, and to interview the scientists trying to piece together what occurred, and conservationists desperately trying to preserve or restore what remains. Kolbert takes us readers into a cave where the floor is piled with frozen bat carcasses. She wades us into waters populated by scores of exotic and sometimes terrifying sea creatures: jagged coral, struggling sea turtles, stinging stone fish, and an octopus who can kill with one bite. If, like me, you have not the time nor funds to go to the Amazonian rain forest or Great Coral Reef yourself, reading this book can help take you there in your imagination. 

By connecting both ancient and recent extinction with currently endangered species, Kolbert builds the case for what scientists have been calling the Holocene Extinction (a mass extinction event caused by humans). As Kolbert emphasizes, it might soon be re-named the Anthropocene Extinction, in acknowledgement the enormity of our impact on the biosphere. 

In the final chapter, Kolbert writes about the black-faced honeycreeper, which is thought to have gone extinct in the fall of 2004. As I read this, I couldn't help but think about what I was doing in 2004. As it so happens, I got married that year in the late spring. So just as I was beginning my life-partnership with my husband, the black-faced honeycreeper was ending its existence as a living species. Though I lived to witness this animal go extinct during my lifetime, our daughters were born after it was already gone. This sort of sad event is happening constantly, and the evidence that it is due to human activity has become as overwhelming as the reminder of our species' own limited lifespan. 

Kolbert's tone manages to be rather upbeat. Though deeply concerned, she never comes off as alarmist, nor does she shake her finger at only certain perpetrators. Instead, she draws the reader into specific situations, lays out all the facts, connects the up-close experience to the bigger picture, and finally wraps it up with a few poignant phrases. (I've highlighted three of my favorite lines from the book in this blog post in green.) She makes it clear that we humans are all in this together. Indeed, radically transforming our environment at a rapid pace (geologically speaking) might be written into our genetic code. 

By the end, it is clear that Kolbert's heart is most with the animals going extinct. It was here that I felt my concerns diverge a bit from the author's. As much as my heart bleeds for the rhinos and corals, throughout my reading of the book, I found myself wondering, what does this mean for us? As beautiful and evocative as I find the natural world, and as sad as is the thought of losing so many species (especially the most charismatic ones), I must admit that my main concern regarding these mass extinctions is that in causing such profound disruptions to the global ecosystem, we humans are making the planet inhospitable to us. 

Last week the UN just had its annual Summit On Climate Change. Some, such as Gustavo Fonseca are hopeful about the world's nations finally taking strong action to combat the forces changing our planet. Others, such as Nick Cunningham, were little impressed.

Right now I'm rather pessimistic that the world's leaders and citizenry have the will to take actions most necessary and based in both hard science and human compassion. It certainly didn't help that during the Summit, I drove across my home state of Pennsylvania, encountering a steady clip of pro-fracking, anti-environmentalist billboards paid for by the Coal industry. 

I would like to think that if anything could bring humanity, so deeply divided by ethnicity, race, religion, and class, together, it might be the cause of climate change. But those problems are simply too large, slow-moving (in human terms), and complex for most of us to grasp, much less feel emotionally engaged enough to act. While the UN Summit happened, ISIS had been committing horrific atrocities in an attempt to establish a new Islamic State, the US and allies geared up to bomb Syria, and Vladimir Putin was busy turning Russia into a war state. That's only naming a few, big and current clusterfucks in the affairs of humankind. It is as if most people are too busy feuding with their neighbors over inches of property line, meanwhile rising sea levels might soon claim their entire homes. 

With headlines about beheadings of journalists by Islamic radicals, and invading Russian military forces in the Ukraine thinly disguised as humanitarian aid, I can understand why many people are more concerned about other animals going extinct than the possibility of humans destroying ourselves. 

That said, the only reason we feel angst over the animals going extinct is because of our uniquely human capacity to find meaning and assign values to those lives. Bats don't write symphonies, and frogs don't even care for their young, much less experience years of wonder and hope, tinged with anxiety, as they watch their offspring develop into adults. I want to save the bat, frog, rhino, coral, and all the rest, because I want the world, this world, for my children, and for all children, and their children, and their children.... 

Sin in the Secular Age: Smoking and Obesity

The Judeo-Christian concept of sin is an offence against capital-G God. It is going against His will or plan for us human beings. Some sins are considered minor (venial sins), others are major (mortal sins), but any type of sin carries with it not only consequences in this life, but in the life hereafter. Unless, of course, the sinner is sufficiently repentant, and in the cases of some religious sects, adhering to the correct faith.

We who hold a secular worldview today scoff at the concept of sin, and for a few good reasons.

First, while many behaviors traditionally regarded as sinful do harm (such as lying and stealing) others are not necessarily harmful and might even be beneficial to a person's well-being (such as having healthy sexual relationships outside of marriage.)

Second, inherent in the concept of sin is an additional punishment for supposed misdeeds. It is not enough that lying carries the risk of being caught and not trusted in the future, or that those who steal risk trial and punishment by law enforcement. There must also be the threat of either extra time in purgatory, or eternal torment in hell.

Third, the concept of sin tends to glaze over the reasons behind peoples' misdeeds and focus on punishment. Sin easily goes from being a verb (something a person capable of good or evil has done) to the noun sinner (a person whose fundamental nature is wicked.) When this happens, anger, righteousness and condescension trump humility and compassion. Punishment is emphasized over prevention or more constructive ways to modify harmful behaviors.

The thing is, these problems with sin are not exclusive to those of Judeo-Christian faith. Just as many people of faith emphasize compassion and forgiveness over self-righteous judgement, many secular people have adopted a sort of secular concept of sin.

One example of this is rising premiums on health insurance for smokers. The trend began a few years ago, and the Affordable Care Act does nothing to stop it.

All the problems with sin are present: These measures punish all smokers, even those who smoke in moderation and/or who suffer from no health problems directly connected to their smoking. It adds punishments in addition to the possible ill-effects of smoking (which disproportionately impacts those with lower income, who I might add are those more likely to smoke and have more difficulty quitting.) And instead of addressing the root causes of tobacco addiction and finding non-punitive ways of helping addicts who want to quit do so, it simply punishes them, hoping that these additional punishments will be the deterrent that finally works.

Let's look at a second, similar example: The rising cost of health insurance is driving many companies to pressure obese employees to meet arbitrary weight-loss goals and into participating in often humiliating weight-loss programs. Again, the Affordable Care Act does nothing to stop this discrimination against the obesity in the workplace.  

And again, all the problems with sin are present: These measures punish all (and only) obese people, regardless of any individualized assessment of their health and lifestyle, and while ignoring those who are thin but unhealthy for other reasons. It adds punishments in addition to the possible health problems that disproportionately impact many obese people (not to mention the social discrimination obese people face because they are outside mainstream measures of attractiveness.) Instead of addressing root causes of diseases correlated with obesity (such as diabetes and heart disease), it burdens and shames an entire class of people, hoping that will change their behavior and that those hypothetical changes will yield desirable outcomes.

Smokers and the obese do not need more arbitrary consequences from employers and health insurance companies. Either they are perfectly happy with their behavior choices, or they are not and already have enough motivation and challenges for modifying their behavior. In the case of the former, bug-off because we all have our personal indulgences which are nobody's damn business. In the case of the latter, people need encouragement when and from whom they request it.

While all of our day to day choices will never be 100% in line with our personal goals and values, we can always strive toward personal improvement. The benchmarks are different for different people based on circumstances. Not everyone's values are identical nor should they be. Knowing how much a person smokes or drinks or how much he or she weighs does not give a measure of how hard he or she is working toward personal improvement.

Perhaps some of you reading this post think smokers and obese people should be further punished for their behavior, either because their transgressions deserve it, or you are convinced (despite evidence to the contrary) that shaming people actually works. If that is the case, I implore you, go hang out with the Religious Right where you belong.

Tribute to Robin Williams and Response to Rush Limbaugh's BS About the Liberal "Attitude"

 As one of millions of Robin Williams fans, I am deeply saddened by the entertainer's death. Even moreso because it was by his own hand, and especially because his suicide has sparked a stream of not only tributes, but ugly and wrong-headed sentiments in the media. One such sentiment comes from blowhard Rush Limbaugh, who said of Williams: 

He had everything, everything that you would think would make you happy. But it didn’t. Now, what’s the left’s worldview in general? What is it? If you had to attach not a philosophy but an attitude to a leftist’s worldview, it’s one of pessimism and darkness, sadness. They’re never happy are they? They’re always angry about something. Not matter what they get, they’re always angry. 

Okay, like most of what Rush Limbaugh says, that's pretty infuriating, so I'm taking a moment to calm down and ponder.

Nevermind that speculating about the death of someone only known to Rush through his celebrity is crass and hurtful to those who personally knew Williams (Note Lewis Black's response below. As a side note, Black wrote a thoughtful tribute for Williams for Time.)

Nevermind that depression has been well-established as a health issue, and one that is difficult to treat, opposed to a mere matter of toxic attitude.

What about this business about the Left (presumably Limbaugh means politically-engaged secular humanist liberals) having such a bleak attitude about life? We're pessimistic, dark, and sad compared to what? The theological concept that most people are destined to spend eternity in Hell? Has he never noticed that the main symbol of Christianity is an instrument of torture and execution? Never heard of valle lacrimarum, otherwise known as the Vale of Tears?

For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a great deal of suffering in the world. Here's just one example: Over one billion people on earth live in "extreme poverty," which is defined by the UN as earning less than $1.25 a day. Extreme poverty can mean insufficient food and drinking water, poor sanitation, inadequate shelter from the elements, little to no access to proper health care, education, and opportunities to escape from the conditions of extreme poverty. Over a billion people suffering from that in the world right now. But according to Rush Limbaugh, Robin Williams was supposed to be happy because "He had everything." I guess in the world according to Rush Limbaugh, if you've got yours, there's no good reason to give a damn about anyone else.

It is clear that Robin Williams, in addition to being an talented comedian and actor, stayed informed and engaged in current issues, devoting a great deal of his time and efforts to charity work. He cared about people. It isn't hard to imagine that his concern for the homeless, soldiers on the battlefield, and victims of natural disasters might have put a damper on his enjoyment of personal fortune.

The playwright Jean Racine famously said, “Life is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel.” Of course all people do both, and so at times we can laugh at the pain and absurdity in life, but not always. 

Sometimes those who laugh the most also cry the most, because that which allows them to so cleverly tap into what is humorous also forces them to more intensely face the darkest aspects of the human condition. Today I read a joke on this theme:  

Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says his life is harsh and cruel. Say he feels all alone in a threatening world.

Doctor says, "Treatment is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go see him. That should pick you up.

Man bursts into tears. "But doctor.....I am Pagliacci"

When interviewed on Inside the Actor's Studio, James Lipton asked Robin Williams if heaven exists, what would he like to hear when he gets there (watch the video below.) Williams concluded his witty response by saying that it would just be nice to know there's laughter in heaven.

I don't know about heaven (or hell for that matter), but there's certainly a lot of laughter to be found in this life, not least because of the gifts of one comedic genius.

Thank you, Robin Williams, for all the light you brought to the world with your spark of madness.

Exclusive Scouting and the Defamation of Atheists

A year ago the Boy Scouts of America adopted a resolution to end the ban on openly gay scouts. Many cheered, despite the fact that the BSA - the scouting group with the greatest resources and prominence in American society - still won't allow openly gay leaders and continues its ban on atheist leaders and scouts.

In response, Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America, lamented:

There is no similar step forward for atheists. This modified policy would still require local groups to discriminate against atheists, apparently because the Boy Scout Oath implies that an atheist can’t be “morally straight” unless he can do his “duty to God.” 

Using this twisted logic, a number of courageous and honest atheists have been kicked out of the Scouts for rejecting all supernatural beliefs. Among them was my friend Darrell Lambert, an Eagle Scout, who had been supported by his entire troop.

Dan Kennedy was optimistic (well, sort of, I'll explain below) in his response: 

Though Thursday's vote can be seen as a modest step forward, another possible compromise floated earlier this year would have been far more workable. You may remember that one: groups that charter troops, such as churches and civic organizations, would have been free to set their own policies. 

Such a compromise would have accurately reflected how the BSA actually operates, as troops are considered part of their chartering organizations. To concoct a hypothetical, it would have opened the way for a Unitarian Universalist church to sponsor a troop that allowed gay scouts and adult leaders as well as atheists, another group banned under current BSA policy.

I write "sort of " optimistic because policies varying so much from troop to troop remind me of the event that inspired Margaret Downey to devote herself so passionately to defending the rights of atheists: she saw her son in tears because of discrimination. Downey's son had been a Boy Scout at a troop where his atheism was tolerated. But when the family moved, he was denied membership because of his lack of belief. 

My daughter will be old enough for scouting in a year, and as a parent I'm interested for many typical reasons. Scouting instills a sense of responsibility through community service, encourages positive relationships with peers, and offers kids opportunities and the motivation to learn new and useful skills. Scouts are generally thought of as eager to lend a hand, adept, and principled.

I am therefore deeply grateful for Lance Finney's of Grounded Parents article Ethical and Inclusive Scouting, which gives a rundown of scouting alternatives for secular parents. I live in a major metropolitan city outside of the Bible Belt, so my kids have several good scouting options to choose from. Not every American atheist family is so lucky.

As an atheist parent, simply acknowledging the history of scouting can be painful. All scouting has its origins not only Christianity, but an exclusionary mindset that falsely asserts that people must believe in and worship the Christian God in order to be good.

I can't think of a more clear example of the moral defamation of atheists than this previous wording (changed less than a year ago) in the BSA's Declaration of Religious Principle:

The BSA maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law."

Consider if such a thing were said of any other faith group: Jews can't be the best kind of citizens. Buddhists can't be the best kind of citizens. Mormons can't be the best kind of citizens. And so on. Pretty awful, isn't it? 

Many of these attitudes persist today, especially in America, where atheists are the most distrusted minority. Not because of anything we real flesh-and-blood atheists do (we tend to be pretty model citizens, actually), but because groups such as BSA maintain an association of God-belief with character, integrity, and high moral standards, thus associating atheism with bad behavior.

Austine Cline suggests:

...atheists are being saddled with the "sins" of American society generally. They are "a symbolic figure" that represent religious theists' "fears about ... trends in American life." Some of those fears involve "lower class" crimes like drug use; other fears involve "upper class" crimes like greed and elitism. Atheists are thus a "symbolic representation of one who rejects the basis for moral solidarity and cultural membership in American society altogether."

Prejudice against atheists, particularly when instilled in children and youth and under the guise of moral superiority, contribute to discrimination. 

Over the years the views among many scouting organizations around the world have broadened to include all or most sects of Christianity, Jews, and even people of non monotheistic faiths and atheists. The Girl Scouts of America is an example of a scouting organization that discriminates against none based on worldview, which personally pleases me, as I have daughters.

But what continues to disappoint is that so many scouting organizations persist in discriminating (most often against atheists and homosexuals, but sometimes other non-Christian faiths and certain sects of Christianity) even as they give lip service to the value of inclusiveness and brag about how inclusive they are in other respects. 

The BSA Scout Oath includes:

A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

What meaning does "respect" hold if the organization is formally excluding certain people based on their beliefs regarding the meaning of life, gods, and afterlife? Or maybe they just meant that they respect the religious beliefs of others, but screw all the secularists. 

Trail Life USA is an alternative to BSA that launched in 2013 specifically in response to BSA's allowing openly gay scouts (but remember, not leaders.) In their statement on Membership Standards, Trail Life USA writes: 

While the program is undergirded by Biblical values and unapologetically reflects a Christian worldview, there is also a clearly defined inclusion policy for youth. Accordingly, all boys are welcome irrespective of religion, race, national origin or socio-economic status. 

But all boys are not welcome since individual Charter Organizations are permitted to exclude boys of certain faiths. 

American Heritage Girls, a sort of sister organization to Trail Life USA, contradicts themselves even more blatantly in their own Inclusion Policy: 

All girls of any color, creed, race, national origin and socioeconomic status who agree to live according to the standards of the AHG Oath and the AHG Creed are invited to be a member of the American Heritage Girls. 

So AHG accepts those of "any creed" so long as they agree with their "Creed"?

Seriously, how do the leaders of these organizations not recognize their own hypocrisy? Their organizations are either inclusive (which means being inclusive to the nonreligious) or they discriminate based on religion.

Camp Quest is an excellent example of an organization that is genuinely inclusive. Though Camp Quest is explicitly set up to promote the values of humanism and is generally run by and attracts secular humanists, there are no oaths or creeds. There is nothing in their mission statement that is exclusive to any people of faith because humanist values are pretty similar to Christian values, minus the religious exclusion, sexist gender roles, sexual repression, and bigotry against homosexuals.  From Camp Quest's FAQ: 

Are campers at Camp Quest required to be atheists?   

Answer

No. Campers at Camp Quest are encouraged to think for themselves and are not required to hold any particular view. We firmly believe that children should not be labeled with worldview labels by adults, and instead should be encouraged to ask questions and explore different worldviews as they grow.
We do present atheism and humanism as valid and reasonable options for an ethical and fulfilling life, and most counselors at camp consider themselves to be atheists.

Would a child who believes in God be comfortable at Camp Quest?

Answer

Yes. Campers at Camp Quest explore different worldviews, and many children aren't decided yet on their beliefs on the God question. Campers who believe in God may get a lot of interested questions from their fellow campers, but the camp environment fosters asking these questions in a spirit of dialogue and mutual respect. As far as we know, campers who believe in God have all had fun, made friends, and had a great Camp Quest experience.

This isn't just lip service. I volunteered as a camp counselor for Camp Quest in Ohio (relocated from Kentucky because a group of Baptists got a law passed just so they could legally refuse to rent their camp grounds to us dirty atheists.) One year we had a Catholic boy who was there because his atheist grandfather had suggested it and his Catholic parents were open minded. This boy was immensely popular with the other campers who were eager to show him the tolerance and respect that they who live in very religiously intolerant communities longed for. (Sadly, I've met several kids who lost Christian friends because their friends' parents found out about their atheism.)

One of the purposes of Camp Quest is to let kids from secular homes know that it's okay to choose no religion and to be skeptical of the existence of god/s, because our kids are constantly bombarded with the opposite message. 

Photo from Camp Quest South Carolina's blog

It's bad enough when peers tease and bully. But it is much worse when in addition, parents, adult mentors, and whole institutions tell a child You don't belong here. Go away. At that point the exclusion can feel like a hopeless situation because it seems the whole world insists they change who they are, or simply disappear.

Exclusion based on personal worldview is wrong, just as exclusion based on race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, disability, or sexual orientation is wrong. It's wrong because it results in needless suffering. It encourages feelings of fear and shame in the people being excluded. It also encourages self-righteous bullying among members of the in-group.

Scouting groups that exclude atheists (or gays, or other religious sects, etc.) can tell themselves that they have high moral standards all they want. In reality, they are just bullies teaching intolerance.

Beyond the Birth Wars

The Grieving Parents by Kathe Kollwitz

Since writing two essays which address the natural childbirth movement (first in 2011, then again last week) I feel a bit as if I've been sucked into the tunnel vision of the Birth Wars. 

Taking a step back, I see it all as a paltry debate among those of us who are lucky enough to have quality and choices when it comes to our health care.

Don't read me wrong; it's clear that there is a whole lot of natural childbirth woo out there that is distinctly anti-science, anti-medical establishment, and anti-feminist. It is clear that lay midwives attending high-risk births in homes instead of hospitals has resulted in the preventable deaths of babies and women. 

It's just that in reading about the broader picture of birth in both America and across the world, I see a much greater concentration of death and harm among the economically disadvantaged, and especially women of color. I feel compelled to check my priorities. It's not that every woman and baby doesn't matter. It's that every woman and baby does matter.    

The Widow II by Kathe Kollwitz

For many pregnant women and their newborn babies, the difference between rich and poor is the difference between life and death. For instance, according to Save the Children's State of the World's Mothers 2013, in Cambodia, babies born to the poorest 20% of parents have a 144% elevated risk of death compared to babies born to the richest 20%. More than a quarter million women die every year because of complications from childbirth.The dead babies (and consequentially the grieving mothers, many of whom must endure their grief without sufficient social or mental health support) number over a million every year. Without question, most of these deaths are preventable, connected to, and exacerbated by the conditions of poverty.   

America's GDP doesn't make Americans immune to the deadly disadvantages of poverty. In 2011 the World Health Organization reported that the USA had a higher newborn mortality rate than 40 other nations. And a 2010 publication by Amnesty International reported about the high rates of maternal deaths and complications associated with pregnancy and birth for American women. 

In addressing these issues, natural childbirth advocates cry out about overused medical interventions and unnecessary c-sections. But it seems apparent to me that the problems for women and babies at higher risk begin long before a woman becomes pregnant. Food insecurity, poor nutrition, unsafe and/or highly stressful living conditions, and inconsistent access to preventative health care set women up with issues such as high blood pressure, diabetes, and obesity, all of which can easily lead to complications in pregnancy, which then may very well require all those interventions and c-sections. 

Then there's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, and often if anyone does, they are shut down: racism. Race is the strongest predictor of outcomes for birth in America (with black women and babies suffering the worst outcomes), and yet when these huge disparities are reported and discussed, the focus tends to stick exclusively to economic disadvantages and ignore the *gasp* possibility that black women are treated differently by doctors, nurses, and other health care workers (not to mention employers, teachers, social workers, or anyone else they encounter and who might impact their lives.) But is it so hard to imagine that pervasive and damning stereotypes of pregnant black women, especially poor, young, pregnant black women, could have at least a subtle impact on the way they are handled and advised by medical professionals during prenatal care, birth, and postpardum care? 

Authors of the 2010 article Closing the Black-White Gap in Birth Outcomes: A Life-Course Approach, outline a 12 point plan which includes suggestions which seem indirectly connected to pregnancy and birth, such as "Invest in community building and urban renewal", and "Reduce poverty among African American families." People who enjoy strong communities and financial security often take their huge benefits for granted and fail to see how they dramatically impact a person's overall health, behavior, and choices. 

Of course the broad suggestions in this 12 point plan need to be refined into specific programs, many uniquely tailored for particular communities, but the overall point is sound. 

The issues that result in dead or injured women and babies at birth can't be solved by either warm and fuzzy homebirth midwives or even a well-trained OB with a scalpel. The physical, emotional, and social needs of impoverished women not being met are far too great. 

Barbie at the Book Fair

Advertisements masquerading as children's literature.

Barbie showed up at my four-year-old's school Book Fair. She was there in all her blond and blue-eyed, plastic, dead-eyed, all-surface-no-depth glory in the form of five "based on the movie!" board books and two sticker storybooks.

Stickers - they're interactive! (And chocking hazards for half the kids at my daughter's reverse mainstream preschool. Not to mention a cheap gimmick to distract kids from desiring and delving into actual children's literature. But I digress.)

Like many of her friends, my daughter wanted to buy a Barbie book. I observed that they came with plastic toys or stickers and were poorly written and illustrated, so I said no. Instead she picked out Fancy Nancy: Fanciest Doll in the Universe, written by Jane O'Connor and illustrated by Robin Preiss Glasser, and Princess Grace, written by Mary Hoffman and illustrated by Caroline Binch.

THIS is children's literature.

What a difference a professional author and illustrator make! The characters of Nancy and Grace feel like real people with distinct personalities. While Nancy does at first seem to be the typically girlie girl who adores fancy stuff such as tutus and accessories, she's also a quirky designer with her own unique style, and is sometimes clumsy or tacky. She is rather dramatic with both her words and body language, capable of intense anger, but also forgiveness. With the character of Grace, too, the traces of typical girl melt away as we learn what really grabs her interest, and how her ma, nana, teacher, and friends (her daddy moved away and is re-married) influence her views.

These books are stories about the human experience, particularly what is can be for children. How the reader perceives the surface appearances changes as we get to know the personalities and personal dramas of the characters, and that provides a meaningful connection to our understanding of real life, with all its bumps and blemishes.

I don't have serious problems with Barbie as a doll. I don't like the re-enforcement of unrealistic beauty standards, but I must admit that I loved playing with fashion dolls as a kid. Even a child without her own fashion dolls will likely encounter and play with them at a friend's house. Much creativity, social, and intellectual development ensues when children play pretend games with dolls.

But Barbie in books? No. No no no no, a thousand times no.

That goes for LEGO in books, shamelessly stealing attention away from quality children's literature in order to advertise their line of Chima and Ninjago toys. Toys are one thing. Books are another.

That goes for all the books based on animated children's shows and films, such as Disney Princesses, Bubble Guppies, and yes, even Elmo.

I have read enough of this crap to know that the vast majority of it is poorly written and poorly illustrated.

For instance, Barbie the Pearl Princess takes the form of a board book (books marketed to toddlers), but the actual text is far too long-winded for that age group. It reads like a straight-forward synopsis of the movie. The words merely describe the bare facts of what has transpired, and so any personal human experience, character development, building of suspense, impact during climax, or emotional satisfaction found in the resolution of conflict, is dulled.

The illustrations are equally awful. Don't get me wrong - they are pretty. Glossy, brightly-colored, slick and shiny. But in every image the characters appear as if posing for a movie poster, rather than behaving naturally. Every page made me think of the cover of a fantasy novel, but with a plastic fashion doll used as the model.

Worse yet, the pictures had only the most superficial connection to the text. For instance, on one page of Barbie the Pearl Princess, the words tell us Caligo had "spies everywhere." This is a perfect opportunity for the illustrator to show the dangers in Lumina's midst, but instead we're shown just another pretty picture of Lumina as a child playing with her adopted mother. The problem is that an hour-long film is being crammed into a 24 page picture book. Countless great story-telling opportunities are sacrificed for the sake of forcing something that doesn't really work to work.

THIS is also children's literature

In a good picture book, words and pictures also interact and compliment each other. Words tells us that Fancy Nancy's little sister JoJo is "a handful, which is a nice way of saying really naughty", while the illustration shows JoJo dressed as a cop in a menacing stance, tying her playmate to a tree. Words tell us that Grace has decided to be an African princess wearing a dress made by her nana out of Kente cloth, while the illustration shows us how regal and unique she appears on the float.

In books based on toys, shows, and movies, oftentimes no author or illustrator is even listed on the cover. Indeed, why would they be? These books are not the brainchild of any artist and/or creative writer. These books are an assignment for commercial writers and illustrators. They are in every meaningful way advertisements that merely take the form of a child's picture book.

To quote a poignant scene from the satirical show Futurama, where the character Fry discovers that in the future commercials are broadcast right into people's dreams.

Fry: That's awful. It's like brainwashing. 

Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 20th century? 

Fry: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee!

Call me a snobby bibliophile, but books for kids should be off limits. Or at least the ones being sold at book fairs in schools should be off limits. Children's literacy is too important to turn their books into advertisements for cheap, plastic crap.

We let this happen, and we will become a society of anti-intellectual dupes who run out and buy every piece of shiny shit dangled in front of our eyes, oblivious to the harm all this junk is doing to our intellect, our aesthetic senses, our emotional experiences, not to mention our budgets.

But maybe it's too late. To quote one of the many 5 star reviews of Barbie the Pearl Princess:

My daughter may be 8yr old but she loves her Barbie books! This was easy for her to read and the story is always a learning tale. I love the happy endings. Gives a girl something to dream of herself. :) Thanks for always giving my girl something to dream about. :)

See, advertisers don't need to develop any futuristic technology to broadcast their cheap, plastic crap into our dreams. They already found a way in.

Harming Young Mothers with Stereotypes

Hypothetically, imagine a single woman who becomes unexpectedly pregnant. 

The father is a man she has been dating, but not for long, and she can't tell yet if they're suited for marriage. He has a job, but lives paycheck to paycheck. He sometimes mentions more lucrative career aspirations, but she doesn't know him well enough to know how serious and capable he is to achieve them. 

She has a full time job, but also lives paycheck to paycheck, so she's also attending college part time, and aspires toward a degree that will help her get a job that pays better. 

She decides to keep the baby. Not because of any moral or religious pressure - she is politically pro-choice. She knows being a mother will introduce many challenges, and that she will need to depend on family, friends, and possibly social services for assistance. But she has family and friends, there are programs for food, medical care, and early childhood education (WIC, SNAP, CHIP, Medicaid, and Head Start) if she needs them. Most importantly, now that the potential for a child of her own is growing inside her, she feels strongly that she is ready to be a mother. 

This hypothetical includes a lot of information about the mother-to-be. One thing it doesn't include is her age. Assuming that every other factor remains the same, what different challenges will she face if she is 20, 30, or 40? 

Another detail left out is how her family and friends react to her decision. If this were your friend or relative, would her age make a big difference in your response? Would you be more supportive and less likely to try to talk her out of keeping the baby based purely on her age? 

Over the years, I've slowly realized that I've picked up unfairly prejudicial attitudes toward young mothers (think between 18-25 years old.) These attitudes include that young mothers are short-changing themselves in terms of earning potential, career development, and long-term personal fulfillment. That they are, in their immaturity, acting on foolish and romantic notions, not considering the full ramifications of their choices, and likely to have regrets. 

Such attitudes about young mothers are common among middle class, educated liberals (such as myself.) We rationalize our prejudices two ways: first with statistics, and second as a way to position ourselves in opposition to religious conservatives. 

Statistics

The evidence firmly reveals that young mothers across the spectrum are at an economic disadvantage. But why are younger mothers so disadvantaged? 

Stephanie Coontz points out that all mothers have decreased earning potential. 

Much of the progress that women have made in income parity has gone to childless women. Motherhood, writes the sociologist Joya Misra, is now a greater predictor of wage inequality than gender in the United States. According to her research, conducted with Michelle Budig at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, motherhood imposes about twice the earning penalty in the United States compared with what women face in countries that have expansive publicly financed child care systems.

Coontz goes on to cite evidence that mothers are discriminated against by employers when it comes to hiring, hours, and promotions. This means that women who choose to have their first child young start out their careers facing discrimination. 

The problem is a system failing mothers, especially young mothers, not of women messing up the timing. 

Advising young women to put off those aspirations toward motherhood - regardless of what they want - because they will face discrimination is like advising a woman not to go into a career field known for its sexism. When we advise people to give up perfectly valid aspirations because we fear the system will treat them unfairly, we are supporting that status quo instead of demanding that it  change to fit peoples' needs. 

Opposing Religious Conservatives

Young motherhood is often associated with anti-feminist, religious values; the Bible instructing women to obey their husbands, the Quiverfull movement, high divorce rates among young couples in the Bible Belt, and even child brides forced into marriage. 

All of that is scary, harmful, and needs to be firmly countered by modern humanist values. But what does the Religious Right have to do with a single, young, and independent woman who happens to have an unplanned pregnancy and wants to raise the child? What does the Religious Right have to do with recently graduated high school sweethearts who are ready to get married and begin their family? 

I often hear people say that women should wait so that they can finish their education. But 43% of Americans obtain no formal education beyond high school, and only 30% will get a Bachelor's Degree or higher. (source.) A majority of jobs are done by workers without any higher education, including occupations in management, administration, and sales. 

Again, the problem is the economy, not religion. It is that most young, full-time working Americans cannot earn enough to even modestly support a family. This sinks so many single mothers into poverty, and puts tremendous strain and hardship onto young married couples with children. 

Stereotypes Hurt

Prejudiced attitudes from liberals against young women who choose motherhood adds shame to the list of challenges they must face. 

According to a survey reported on Parenting.com, young mothers often do feel that they are being shamed for their decision. 

Thirty-six percent of younger moms (and a whopping 54 percent of moms 24 years old or younger) say that an older mom has tried to make them feel like they're too immature or inexperienced to care for a baby.
...
13 percent of the younger ones cite "the disapproval of others" as one of the main drawbacks to having kids when they did. 

The Stacked Deck 

Wage stagnation prevents too many single mothers (of any age) from being able to support themselves, and prevents too many husbands (especially the young ones) from being able to support their stay-at-home-wives and children. One need only look at stats on household income to see that most working Americans are being asked to do more with less. Liberals giving all young women the impression that having a kid young leads to poverty is just as bad as conservatives telling women they just need to find a good husband to depend on. 

The reality is that many young women, both married and unmarried, are ready for motherhood. It's not their fault that the deck is stacked against them. The deck is stacked against a lot of people in our society, some because of their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background, and some because of perfectly legitimate, personal decisions, such as to start a small business, become an artist, or raise children. 

If we as a society decided that the hardships of the poor and working class - food insecurity, inadequate health care, unsafe neighborhoods, under-performing public schools, un-affordable day care - were unacceptable, if we were to prioritize alleviating those hardships, then all people would be free to make the educational, career, and family choices that best suit them, without fear, and without shame.