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:  

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. 

What Does Secularism Have to Do With Women's Rights?

For a long time I've sort of taken my reproductive rights for granted. While I've never been faced with an unintended pregnancy, I've faced that possibility since puberty, and will continue to face it until menopause. I've always felt assured that I'd be able to get a safe, legal, early-term abortion, if that's what I so choose. Based on the privileges of where I live, my age, and my income, that presumption is sound. 

For now. 

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, Americans remain conflicted about abortion. Anti-abortion activists continue to harass women at clinics, commit horrific acts of violence, and passionately lobby for countless laws that restrict women's access to abortion, regardless of the real life financial, healthcare, and even criminal consequences. If we value reproductive choices and the most sound public health care policies, this is not an issue where we can afford to back down. 

There's another thing I've always taken for granted: that the secular movement, which I've been involved with since I was 19, politically stands for women's reproductive rights. 

When I say I've "been involved" with the movement for 16 years, this is no casual interest. After being VP and President of the campus freethought club at the third largest university in the USA, I became one of the founding board members of the Secular Student Alliance, and editor of the first publication of the SSA's Group Running Guide. I've been VP of HCCO, one of the largest local chapters of the AHA, and when I moved to Philadelphia I became heavily involved with HAGP, one of the AHA's oldest local chapters. I was twice a camp counselor for Camp Quest. I was a celebrant certified by the Humanist Society, and for 6 years I officiated secular weddings, baby namings, and one memorial service. I have given talks on secular humanism for a class at Penn State. I was the coordinator for the launch of PhillyCoR (the precursor to UnitedCoR). I'm even mentioned by name in Greg Epstein's book Good Without God. At this point the number of volunteer hours that I have put into this movement are incalculable.   

I list all this to make clear just how much of a personal stake I have in the secular movement. These are "my people." This is my "comfort zone." Of course I don't agree with everything I hear anyone at a meeting or conference say. I enjoy a spirited and intellectually challenging debate with a Libertarian atheist over, say, school funding or gun control. 

On the issues where critical inquiry, scientific evidence, and compassion heavily weigh on one side (vaccination, science education in public schools, government funds for faith-based initiatives, and embryonic stem cell research, for example) our leadership and the most visible representatives of our community take a firm stance. 

Right? 

Maybe not. 

Three days ago I wrote about David Silverman's statement at CPAC about "secular argument against abortion" and Friendly Atheist Hemant Mehta's giving a platform to two different secular, anti-choice organizations. 

Massimo Pigliucci of the long-running and popular blog Rationally Speaking weighed in with David Silverman and the Scope of Atheism. 

Pigliucci puts a lot of effort into defending philosophical debates over the morality of abortion. And he repeatedly makes it clear that he thinks this is okay because supposedly we're not talking about anti-choice laws and political activism. He writes (my emphasis in bold):  

Of course there are logical, science-based, and rational arguments against abortion. They may turn out to be ultimately unconvincing, or countered by better arguments — as I believe they are — but they certainly exist.

...

Are these arguments sufficient to justify forceful state interventions on women’s bodily integrity, under any circumstances? Very likely not. But plenty of countries (including the US) do already regulate, for instance, late term abortion, noting the ethical complexity of the issue and of course making room for a number of special circumstances, usually having to do with the health of the mother. 

... 

Now, does that mean that we should therefore advocate a restriction of women’s rights as they are currently defined in the US? Of course not, nor do I see any evidence that that’s what Dave meant to suggest.

Regardless of what Dave Silverman meant to suggest, while at a convention of parties which officially advocate severely restricting if not outright banning abortion, Silverman made a statement which implied that there are reasonable, secular arguments that favor such anti-choice political activism. It is worth noting, too, that American Atheists allowed Secular Pro-Life, an extremely anti-choice activist organization, to table at their 2012 conference. 

Regardless of his own pro-choice stance and pro-choice writings, Hemant Mehta gave a platform to two anti-choice organization leaders, both of who, through their anti-choice activism, apply the same sort of irrational and dishonest arguments and tactics used by religious anti-choice activists. 

I was heartened to learn that the AHA's Humanist magazine not only published criticism of this rise of secular "pro-life" activists, but also refused to publish this response by anti-choice activist Kristine Kruszelnicki. 

At least the humanist wing of the movement maintains integrity on this issue. 

Massimo Pigliucci's article evoked such a critical response that he added a Postscript defense. In it he writes: 

Look at it from the point of view of a parallel between atheism and gay rights. The gay rights movement has rightly focused on the issues that are closest and most specific to it: the legal rights of gay people.

So women's rights are not one of the "closest and most specific" issues to the secular cause? Even though the scientific evidence tells us that women are equal to men in terms of sentience and intellect, but a non-viable embryo/fetus has no more sentience than a tree? Even though evidence also tells us that early-term abortions (which account for almost all abortions) are safer than pregnancy? Even though critical inquiry tells us that late-term abortions are rare and sought for reasons which are tragic? Even though compassion should compel us to defer to the women's personal moral judgement and the ethical standards of the medical establishment?


The importance of quality science education public schools is close and specific enough to our cause, but women's rights are not?

The importance of preventing school authorities from leading students in prayer is close and specific enough to our cause, but women's rights are not?

The Secular Coalition for America unites 13 of the largest and most active organizations in our movement, including American Atheists. On the issues page Health and Safety they indeed state they have an interest in defending women's rights with regard to abortion:

Religiously Based Health Care Policy- Government officials should rely on high quality research, not religious beliefs, when making health care policy decisions. (stem cells, women’s health care, substance abuse treatment)

Image by artist Barbara Kruger

So maybe this is why Massimo Pigliucci focused on a philosophical debate over the morality of personally choosing to have an abortion. Maybe he's taking Roe v. Wade and its support for granted.  

I might not mind people sitting around discussing the morality of abortion (as a personal decision, not something up for legal banning) so long as my right to a safe, legal, abortion for any reason during the pre-viability stages of pregnancy AND my access to health care which promotes my health over that of a fetus is fully supported by all present company. 

If not, I'm not having that conversation. I refuse to have a calm, philosophical discussion about the morality of abortion with anyone who doesn't respect and defend equal rights for me and all other women. To expect me or any other feminist to do so is belittling and offensive. 

The secular movement is better than that. At least I hope it is. Otherwise I've seriously wasted much of the last 16 years of my life. 

Soup! 13 Winter Warmer Recipes

My four-year-old keeps asking me if it's almost spring. Here in Philly we get more slush than snow that lays nicely on hills for sledding or that clumps easily into snowmen. My daughter is also quite the little fashionista and much prefers the pastel colors and lighter fabric of her spring and summer wardrobes to her winter one.

I, on the other hand, love winter. Hot cocoa by a warm fire, fleece and flannel sheets, the stark, solemn beauty of snow-covered evergreens and skeletal deciduous trees against a clear, blue sky - I can't get enough.

How can to get my kiddo to better appreciate the coldest season?

Maybe the quickest way for winter to get to my daughter's heart is through her stomach. She might not be into playing in freezing temperatures in a bulky snowsuit, but she sure enjoys a bowl of hot soup.

I present 13 of my family's favorite soup recipes discovered online and tested in my kitchen. They are mostly vegetarian or vegan for health reasons, but the list felt incomplete without chicken soup and beef stew. Also, tastiness was of prime concern and easiness a close second.

I chose 13 because that's roughly the number of weeks of true winter that we in the north must endure, and because I'm a skeptic who enjoys scoffing at superstition.

1.) I'm a huge fan of the recipes found on Susan Voisin's blog, Fat Free Vegan Kitchen, and have included two of her soup recipes in this post. The first is my new favorite, Ridiculously Easy Cream of Broccoli Soup. It is exactly what its name describes - super easy to make and quite delicious. You can see my daughter scarfing it up in the photograph above. With six common ingredients (plus salt and pepper), and requiring only a pot and blender to make, you can't go wrong.

2.) Also from Susan Voisin's blog, I present Stormy Black Bean Soup. This has been a favorite of mine for at least a couple years. It's great as a one-pot meal that you can throw together after work. I usually dress mine up with some hot sauce and slices of avocado.

3.) The magazine Chop Chop is a pretty good source for family-friendly recipes. The ingredients are all familiar to many kids, and these are recipes that even small children can help prepare. I discovered two soups that our family enjoys. The first is Super Tomato Soup, which of course pairs wonderfully with a grilled cheese sandwich (or quesadilla.)

4.) The second soup from Chop Chop is Butternut Squash and Apple Soup. Butternut squash is a pain in the butt to peel and chop, but I've noticed a lot of grocery stores starting to offer packages of pre-cut squash, and this is a great use for them.

5.) Dr. John McDougall is a food guru who advocates a plant-based diet to promote health. He's known for his best-selling books full of easy-to-make, appealing recipes. I'm rather enthusiastic about parsnips, having discovered them in my early adulthood. Not everyone is familiar with them, but they are sort of like a pale, yellow carrot with a more subtle, sweet flavor. Parsnips are truly fantastic either steamed or roasted. On Dr. McDougall's website I found another use for them, this wonderful Potato and Parsnip Soup. There are several recipes on the page, so you have to scroll down to find that soup recipe.

6.) Kale is a big food celebrity among the health-conscious these days, so how could I not include a soup with kale? I love well-prepared kale, and so do my kids. It pairs wonderfully with potatoes, as I found with this recipe for Potato and Kale Soup, also from Dr. McDougall. (Again you must scroll down a bit on the page to find the soup recipe.)

7.) I had some difficulty choosing just one lentil soup recipes for this post, and finally landed on this Curried Red Lentil Soup by chef Linda Lantos. It is a little more elaborate than the preceding recipes, but it is worth the effort if you have the time and patience.

8.) I recently discovered the food blog Bev Cooks, and this winter tried a couple of her truly tasty and exotic soups. The first is Thai Coconut Corn and Mushroom Soup. I'm just crazy about anything with coconut milk and mushrooms, and Thai cuisine is something I feel my children must learn to appreciate.

9.) The second from Bev Cooks is Smoky Corn Chowder with Shrimp. Getting enough iron is always a concern with my petite, little girls who eat mostly vegetarian. Shrimp is high in iron, and more importantly, very yummy. The inclusion of this recipe also satisfies the obligatory bacon requirement.

10.) I've made Beaker's Vegetable Barley Soup probably over a dozen times over the past ten years. It is an unpretentious, satisfying soup to eat with fresh bread on bitter cold days. Even better to eat while reading a good short story with some soothing guitar music in the background. This is the sort of meal that inspires me to appreciate life a little bit more.

11.) A few years ago a friend of mine turned me on to Pumpkin Black Bean Soup with Curry. Whenever I've made it for guests it's always a big hit. I've never kept to one version of the recipe (there are many online, including one from Rachel Ray), but this link does the job. I should also mention that I have always replaced the whipping cream with coconut milk.

12.) Now we come to the absolutely must-have chicken noodle soup. The soup we Americans eat when we're sick or otherwise need comfort. My maternal grandmother's chicken noodle soup recipe was so well-loved that it was served as part of the meal during her funeral's reception. I have tried many different chicken noodle recipes over the years, and it was again difficult to choose just one to include here. I landed on Easy Chicken Noodle Soup from a Leftover Roasted Chicken Recipe because I found it to be a practical recipe for busy parents.

13.) The final must-have (in my opinion) in any list of winter warmers is beef stew. My mother-in-law has several times made beef vegetable stew to serve us as soon as we arrive after the 9+ hour drive home for the holidays, and I consider it to be one of the most satisfying and comforting meals. I've tried a whole lot of those over the years, some more successful than others. This Beef Stew with Carrots and Potatoes found at Once Upon A Chef is the best I've found in recent memory.

Just a few more weeks of winter left. Stay warm!

A More Grounded Winter Holiday

I didn't get around to doing (secular) Christmas cards in December. I was too overwhelmed with work and other holiday season activities. But I absolutely love the tradition of sending cards every year. It's a small but meaningful gesture to friends and family that says, you're important to us.

Cards are physical, and just as a hand-written letter tends to carry more meaning than an email, a card, even a simple photo card, tends to carry more weight than e-cards. Cards are more time consuming and costly than electronic gestures, so I understand why so many people have given it up.

I, however, refuse to totally surrender to the hectic nature of the holiday season, and so instead of just dropping the cards altogether, I pushed them back six weeks and am sending out Groundhog Day cards. Since I had now ample time and I'm a woodcut print-maker, I even made my own cards, one of which you see pictured here, and had my daughter help hand-color a bunch of them. (Inside the cards I'll include the obligatory cute pic of my kids.)

I love this idea, and plan to adopt it as a new family tradition. It's so secular humanist! Here's a fun, cute holiday explicitly connected to nature and the seasons. There are no religious or spiritual trappings. And who couldn't use a pick-me-up in mid-winter after the excess and vacation days of the holiday season are long gone?

Although Groundhog Day has its origins in mild superstition, few people literally believe that groundhogs possess supernatural powers to forecast the weather. There will be no billboards erected by the faithful, urging us to be more pious in our observations of this holiday. Just contradictions between the predictions of Punxatawney Phil and all the other furry prognosticators (Buckeye Chuck, Holtsville Hal, Malverne Mel, Wiarton Willie, etc.) Such disagreements only emphasizes the playful and democratic nature of the holiday. 

Modern Groundhog Day has its origins in my adopted state of Pennsylvania. However, its cultural evolution goes much farther back and across the Atlantic. German settlers originally celebrated February 2nd as Candlemas Day. Like Christmas, that's a Christian holiday, but which marks the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. Also like Christmas, it's clearly a Christianization of earlier, Pagan celebrations, specifically having striking similarities in its date and associated customs to the Celtic holiday Imbolc. 

Groundhog Day shares a parallel history to "Christmas", with the one exception being that it has a distinctly secular name. The term "Christmas" is stuck in a sort of linguistic limbo where it has both a Christian and secular meaning, depending on who uses (and celebrates) it.

In addition to cards, our family celebrated Groundhog Day by attending two winter festivals. On Saturday we went to the Wagner Free Institute for Science's Winter Wonderland, and heard a storyteller talk and sing about how animals cope with the coldest season. Today we attended the Briar Bush Nature Center's Winterfest, where we met many live animals, made groundhog stick puppets, and shadow puppets of local fauna.

In final praise of Groundhog Day, while I loved Bill Murray in Scrooged (actually I love Bill Murray in anything), his performance in Groundhog Day brought this once exclusively North American holiday to the world's attention.

All and all, Groundhog Day is pretty darn cool. 

Lesbian Moms Normalized on the Disney Channel

Sunday, television history was made as a gay couple appeared for the first time on a network that targets children viewers. The Disney Channel's sitcom Good Luck Charlie introduced a lesbian couple as the parents of one of toddler Charlie's playmates.

Except for the bit of history it makes, the scene was completely unremarkable.  Charlie's parents disagree over what is the name of "Taylor's mom", and this confusion is worked out when Taylor shows up with two moms.

And that's it. No awkwardness over the fact that they are a lesbian couple. No jokes that expose underlying prejudice or ignorance. Just, "Ohhh, Taylor has two moms," and life goes on. It is refreshing and wonderful in its normalcy.




This scene is exactly what one would expect from writers who have been instructed to make the show inclusive to LGBT families without addressing any controversies. It is a fair, responsible, and probably overdue form of inclusion if we consider that millions of American kids have LGBT parents, and at least half a million are being raised by lesbian and gay couples. (Numbers based on the 2012 Census.)

My kids don't need to watch LGBT inclusive television because they've lived these sort of scenes. We have friends and relatives who are gay couples, so it's kind of impossible to hide from our kids (not that we would.) And just today, in my 2-year-old's Gymfoolery class, twins showed up with their two moms. Then again, I live in a neighborhood known for its diversity and inclusiveness.

Sadly, religious fundamentalism disguised as family values is still alive and well in America, and dissenters will continue to taint these small human rights victories. We see it in this statement released by One Million Moms, which states:

Disney should stick to entertaining instead of pushing an agenda. Disney decided to be politically correct versus providing family-friendly programming. Disney has a choice whether to produce a program with certain fictional characters; the storyline could be re-written or changed. Conservative families need to urge Disney to exclude confusing topics that children are far too young to comprehend.

First of all, the Disney Channel needs some kind of agenda because they are taking on a certain amount of responsibility in creating entertainment for children. The Disney Channel has opted for an agenda that is not only inclusive, but in line with current shifts in mainstream values.

Then there's the old line about kids being "too young" to learn that *gasp* gay people exist! It's too "confusing" a topic for them to understand.

I've encountered this sentiment a lot in real life and online. Even the comments under After Ellen's article about this story includes:

i am 100 percent against this and i hate that they did this without some type of warning to the parents

And how about this breathtaking piece of cognitive dissonance:

We have loved this show since it started! although i am not against same sex parents, I however am outraged that they introduced them to our children without some sort of parental warning. when i decide to explain the different family matrix to my 9 year old it will be on my time and not by "Good Luck Charlie". I am now glad that the finale is coming because in my opinion this show will need some....

Implicit in such statements are that gay people should be in the closet whenever they are around other peoples' children, which is just cruel and absurd.

People who want to shield their kids from gays on television don't care that the real-world equivalents of Taylor's moms often seek out gay-friendly neighborhoods so they can avoid their kids losing friends, being mercilessly teased, or even beaten if they accidentally refer to their "moms" or "dads" at school. To such families, this small gesture of inclusiveness from a giant in children's entertainment offers a bright view of how far we've come, and where we're headed as a society.

To all those Nimbies out there, who claim to be tolerant of social change, but only if it's happening nowhere near them, so sorry if making LGBT families feel normal means you have to have an awkward conversation with your kid. No, wait, I'm not sorry.

Explaining homosexuality to little kids isn't complicated unless you make it complicated. Just say this:

You know how a man and a woman such as (name ANY happily married straight couple the kid knows) can fall in love, get married, and have kids? Well sometimes that happens with two men or two women, too. 

See how simple that is? It's almost verbatim what I told my kids as soon as they could talk.

If saying that makes you too squeamish, you have your mind in the gutter. It's your problem, not the Disney Channel's. Grow up and be more decent to your fellow human beings, because one of these days your kid might make a friend with two moms.

The Snowman's Fate

Yes, and in the grand scheme of things, won't we all.

All Heaven and Earth

Flowered white obliterate...

Snow...unceasing snow”

-Matsuo Basho 

While in graduate school in 2005 I took a digital art class as an elective and got to mess around with Flash. I ended up making this animation:





I showed the film to numerous faculty and peers during a final critique at the end of the semester. Afterward one professor who had come to know me, my work, and my secular humanist worldview quite well approached me. He laughed at the audience's reaction, saying, "Did you see their faces, all waiting for a resurrection that never came?"

I've thought about that a lot over the years. Indeed, the film was ultimately about death as a natural part of life. But how much did my naturalistic worldview, my inability to comprehend, much less believe in a literal soul or afterlife, influence my art-making process? Would someone who believes in a literal heaven and hell or reincarnation make such a film? And if so, how would they interpret it?

I was reminded of this recently when I acquired and read the excellent picture book Snow Day by Daniel Peddle. This is a wordless picture book. It tells its deceptively simple tale with a series of economical watercolors.

The story begins with a wide-open, snow-covered field. Under a bright sun, a child rolls up great balls of snow to create a classic snowman, complete with carrot nose. The sun starts to set in a brilliantly peach-colored sky, turning the two figures into blue silhouettes that match the long, slanted shadows they cast in the snow. The snowman is left alone under a sky glittering with moon and stars.

But then something curious happens.

I turn the page and suddenly I'm looking at the snowman from space. He sits atop the earth impossibly huge, gazing toward the red-rock moon. This is the point where things go from poetic-yet-descriptive to outright surreal. It is here I feel the snowman is much more than a literal snowman. He becomes a sort of everyman. A fragile, beautiful, transient being briefly erected as king of a humongous spinning rock in space.

I turn the page again, and encounter a breathtaking sunrise exactly behind the snowman. I turn the page again and now the snowman's body is encircled in glowing yellow light. The sun is the harbinger of death, and yet it creates a glorious halo around the snowman, highlighting his significance, his majesty, his tremendous State of Being right here in this very moment.

I turn the page again, and he is gone.

I have no idea what Daniel Peddle's worldview is, so I can't know how he meant his book to be interpreted. I suppose that anyone who believes in souls or reincarnation could interpret the light of the sun washing out the white of the snowman's body as the soul leaving the body and melding with some sort of afterlife or whatever (like I said, I can't really comprehend such concepts, so I'm not sure how to imagine the interpretation of someone who does.)

Maybe Peddle meant it to be just a funny book about how snowmen melt. Or maybe the snowman could symbolize something other than humanity, such as childhood.

That's the thing about art - once the artist puts it out there, it's for the audience to interpret from our own perspectives. And I find the humanist interpretation of this book as about the beauty of life and quiet, inevitability of death most poignant and powerful.

This picture book is geared toward (or at least marketed toward) the youngest of readers. My two year old enjoyed it very much. She could understand the story, pointed excitedly at "the sun", and at the end loudly declared, "The snowman melted!"

I liked it too (honestly I would have bought it whether I had kids or not) but for other reasons. I like to simultaneously ponder both the brevity and beauty of life. It reminds me to be appreciative, accept my tiny place in the universe for what it is, and not greedily hope for something else or something more. I think of this when I see butterflies or the remains of perished birds.

I read this picture book to my toddler in the hopes that experiencing it might play a role in her forming a mentality that regards death as part of a natural progression.

There will be no resurrection. But oh, the light before it burns out!

Kris Kringle, Kids, and Kandy

Miracle on 34th Street is the most anti-secular-humanist holiday film ever made.

Just stick with me on this for a bit.

The skepticism of Doris Walker, a bright, capable, divorced mother, should be viewed as a strength. Instead, it becomes apparent that this trait, along with her drive to instill a skeptical outlook in her daughter, comes from a place of personal pain and fear. The message is clear; skeptics, especially women skeptics, are callous people with trust issues, and in need of saving.

Fred Gailey, a handsome attorney, comes to Doris's and her daughter Susan's rescue. He's concerned about mom's refusal to teach Susan fairy tales. Fred wins Doris over with an incredible display of faith and friendship; he takes in Kris Kringle, the Macy's Santa who Doris has hired, and who claims to be the real Santa Claus. When Kris is threatened with being locked up in a mental institution, Fred successfully defends him in court, arguing that Kris is indeed the one and only Santa Claus.

Lip service is paid to deeper values, mostly by Fred (he is an attorney, after all):

It's not just Kris that's on trial, it's everything he stands for. It's kindness and joy and love and all the other intangibles.

But if you really listen to what Fred says, it's vague enough to be open to interpretation. Worse yet is the implication that belief in supernatural forces is required to experience awe, joy, or love.

Look Doris, someday you're going to find that your way of facing this realistic world just doesn't work. And when you do, don't overlook those lovely intangibles. You'll discover those are the only things that are worthwhile.

A holiday story with Santa that I like much better: Tim Burton's "The Nightmare Before Christmas."

The fuzzy meaning of all Fred's flowery talk is, in the end, overshadowed by another message, one of self-absorbed materialism. Even after Doris is converted to a happier woman and in love with good ol' Fred, and Kris Kringle wins his freedom, Susan remains doubtful and depressed all the way up until when Kris Kringle gives her a house. (Technically Doris and Fred have to buy it. But Kris magically made Susan's dream house appear for sale at just the right time and place.) Not only is faith necessary to experience love, but to keep children happy, we must buy the stuff on their wish lists.

If all that wasn't enough, the film even justifies violence. Kris Kringle is on trial because he believes he's Santa Claus, right? Well, that and the fact that he thumped a psychologist, Granville Sawyer, on the head with his cane. Thumped him so hard that Sawyer is left with a goose egg so large he can't wear his hat. What did Sawyer do to deserve it? Kick a puppy? Smack a baby? No. He mis-diagnosed and mis-advised another character who had come to him for help. Apparently if you're righteous enough, you can skip diplomacy and appeals to proper authorities, and go right to smacking naughty people around.

Miracle on 34th Street is a product of a culture that champions faith, and regards doubt with contempt. A world where discreet forces of good and evil exist, and where virtue will be cosmically rewarded, while sin is punished. It achieves this by pulling on our heartstrings, and getting us to turn our brains off. The good guys Fred and Kris are respectively handsome and adorable, and both tremendously charming. The villain Mr. Sawyer is weaselly and ugly.

Santa Claus is one of modern, American society's sacred cows. To be more specific, convincing children that Santa Claus is real is thought to be virtuous. Just as Fred expresses dismay toward Doris for denying Susan fairy tales, real people express dismay when other adults refuse to play along with the Santa myth. As a school teacher, I knew to keep my mouth shut around the kids, and say, "Ask your parents."

Some people in my life have expressed concern that being denied Santa realness, my kids are missing out on an important part of their development. I'd love to know what we're preparing kids for when we knowingly blur the lines between reality and fantasy. To pray, instead of going out and doing something? To be complacent in the face of injustice in hopes of pie in the sky when we die?

It's offensive to accuse adults of lying to children about Santa. But what else do you call it when one person tells another person something they know to be false? A common defense is to insist that Santa is something figurative (read Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus), and then ignore that the kids are taking us literally.

And kids are taking us literally. Five year olds aren't musing over the warm, fuzzy feelings they associate with the jolly fiction of Santa Claus. They imagine a chuckling fat man in a factory full of elves.

Another argument is that it's not lying because young kids don't distinguish between fantasy and reality. Based on current understanding of children's cognitive development, that's wrong. Developmental psychologist Alison Gopnik said in an interview for Seed magazine:

Both Piaget and Freud thought that the reason children produced so much fantastic, unreal play was that they couldn't tell the difference between imagination and reality. But a lot of the more recent work in children’s theory of mind has shown quite the contrary. Children have a very good idea of how to distinguish between fantasies and realities. It’s just they are equally interested in exploring both.

Oh no, it's a monster!

In episode 188: Kid Logic of This American Life,  Gopnik mentions a specific experiment done by colleague Paul Harris. Harris had children imagine either puppies or monsters inside a box, and then observed the children's reactions to the box when left alone. Even though the children all agreed the box was really empty, up until the age of 6 or 7, the children who imagined a puppy tended to peek inside the box, while the ones who imagined a monster tended to move away from it. In his article Monsters, ghosts and witches: Testing the limits of the fantasy/reality distinction in young children, Harris concluded that,

Although young children are able to distinguish fantasy from reality, they do not necessarily understand that a fantastic entity cannot transform into a real one.

I suspect Spencer (my older child) sometimes wonders if Santa is real. They're still the age where, according to Harris's experiment, they doesn't understand that the fantastic cannot become real. When we talk about Santa, I don't lie. I tell our kids he's a lovable character like Dora.

Kids make their own magic. They don't need our help indulging in fantasy. They do need to know that they can trust us.

Santa is a regular character on one of Spencer's favorite shows, "Pucca". Here he is performing the dreidel song for an audition. 

Anyway, why this need to believe fictional characters are real to be enthralled and in awe by them? My kids enjoy Santa in the same way they enjoy Elmo. Spencer knows Elmo is a puppet.  In an interview with Rove McManus, Kevin Clash (the puppeteer of Elmo) said that children who come on the Sesame Street set,

...normally don't look at me. They just look at me like someone whose carrying around their favorite friend. Especially with kids, they keep their imaginations.

The magic isn't that the kids believe the puppets are alive. They know it's a show, but it's such a high caliber performance that suspension of disbelief is easy and natural.

We don't need to have faith to experience love and awe. We simply need to be human.

In the final scene of Miracle on 34th Street, we see that Fred and Doris didn't have faith in Kris after all. Upon seeing Kris's cane in the corner of the house, Fred and Doris fall silent, their expressions deadly serious. In a sober tone of voice, Fred remarks (referring to his victory at trial), "Maybe I didn't do such a great thing after all." The implication is that Kris never needed saving because he truly is a supernatural being.

"Lovely intangibles" aside, in the end, what is most titillating about the film is the idea that Kris Kringle, a living, breathing, flesh-and-blood person, might be the real Santa Claus, imbued with real magical powers. Fred's virtue by itself isn't enough. Virtue is instead a means of getting mystical forces on our side so they'll step in and help us. To put it another way, be good and you'll get to heaven (or at least fall in love and get a pretty, little house in the burbs.) Ah, yes, viewers' escape from reality is complete.

CAUTION: Trivial entertainment, like candy, should be consumed in moderation and not confused with stuff that's actually good for us.

My dirty little secret is that I love the film Miracle On 34th Street. I get a jolt of satisfaction when Kris Kringle thumps that weasel Sawyer. I'm swept away by Fred's good looks and charm, impressed by Doris's poise, and amused by Susan's deadpan delivery set against Kris Kringle's boyish charm. I feel a little thrill every time those giant sacks of letters to Santa from the USPS are poured over the cranky judge's bench. As I write this, exhausted after a long day of work and watching after the kids, all I want to do is put on a Snuggie and curl up on the couch with a cup of hot cocoa and watch this film. Cinematic candy, yum!

But hey, at least I don't fool myself into thinking the message of Miracle on 34th Street is anything other than feel-good bullshit.

And I don't tell my kids that Santa is real.

(If you'd like to read even more of my rantings about Santa Claus, last year I wrote, Dumping the Santa Myth.)