One thing that strikes me as somewhat hypocritical is how religious people will pin the atrocities of the 20th century on Charles Darwin or on atheism (despite only tenuous links at best) yet when it's pointed out that religious people - especially Christians - have started wars, committed and assisted in genocides, enslaved people, protected child abusers and tortured people for thought crimes THEN out come the excuses:
They weren't true Christians.
They didn't read the Bible correctly.
They followed their sinful heart instead of listening to Jesus.
One could just as easily reply:
They weren't true atheists.
They didn't read Darwin correctly
They followed bad advice instead of listening to qualified professionals
One of the reasons I am writing about this is because I am writing up a response to the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed...
After a long period of personal reflection, I have decided to step away from Twitter for personal use for an indefinite period of time.
I will still be posting to the platform, but only from automated platforms in order to promote content that I produce, be it the Tall Friendly Atheist Dad podcast or other podcasts that I appear on.
But my decision comes down to these three factors (and Elon taking over Twitter is not one of them):
1. The ability of people to easily misunderstand each other on Twitter.
2. Bad-faith actors and the toxic environment.
3. Making a choice about where to put my time and energy.
One of the things I found about Twitter was how easy it is to misunderstand and misconstrue the words of someone, to the point that friendships gets ruined. Not only that, but also how toxic debate can be - ESPECIALLY if you're discussing hot-button topic like gender or abortion. And this isn't to mention the fact that ideological opponents seem more than willing to try ruin your personal life over disagreements.
I slowly realised that I got sick of taking the time and effort to couch my language and carefully select my words, only for people to accidentally misconstrue my intent (requiring more time and energy in apologies and the like), or act like asshats and deliberately misconstrue anyway.
And the other thing I realised was that I was investing way too much emotional energy in to endless arguments and unprofitable uses of time.
So yeah, if anyone who reads this sees I haven't been posting much on Twitter, that's why. I'm still creating content, but I'm doing it at my own pace and for my enjoyment. I just hope that you enjoy and find it informative!
I will be cancelling "The Great Televangelist Showdown" with immediate effect. The time and effort required to keep that up, alongside all the other stuff I do, ensured its demise.
I am still on social media, but just keeping things to myself, and I will be sporadically checking DMs incase you want to contact me directly.
One of my favourite hobbies is movie watching. I love the art of story-telling, but I also appreciate the effort that goes in to making movies and special effects and stuff like that.
So recently, while I had some free time, I streamed a movie called "The Nun". It's apparently part of the same universe that The Conjuring and Annabelle is in, though I haven't seen any of those films, though I don't mind supernatural horror - one of the things about supernatural horror is that, like sci-fi, you can make up any number of fantastical and unrealistic plot devices and write it off as "supernatural mechanisms".
I didn't mind the movie. Sure, it's not going to win any Oscars, but it's also not winning any Razzies.
Here are some thoughts I had about the film:
1. It doesn't bash Christianity.
It's one of the few mainstream movies around the puts Christianity, and especially Catholicism, in a positive light. This is actually refreshing.
Yes, I am an atheist, but I also do feel that Christianity/Catholicism have become VERY easy targets for mockery, to the point that I feel it's lazy scriptwriting and I'll roll my eyes.
Some examples of this were: the powerful effect of the blood of Jesus, the power of prayer, the idea that taking vows was a serious thing, a church being built over a portal to hell to try contain the evil within.
2. "Frenchie"-Ex Machina.
There's one point about 2/3 through where the nun and the Father have descended to underneath the church (itself a classic storytelling trope) and they're about to meet their end, but the other main character - a French-Canadian nicknamed "Frenchie" - comes back in the nick of time to vanquish the demons (with a shotgun, no less)
This really felt like a deus ex machina moment, but in a way that took away from the story. There was almost an Indiana Jones-like feel to Frenchie in this particular scene, but a poor imitation thereof. While Indiana Jones was a comedic adventure where DEM actually adds to the silliness and fun, in this movie where two people are struggling to keep the second most powerful demon at bay, it doesn't work too well.
3. "Frenchie" as an expository mechanism.
One other function Frenchie serves as is expository - the average audience may not get the Catholic jargon and mindset, so Frenchie serves as the audience where the two main characters who are steeped in Catholicism have to explain to Frenchie (i.e. the audience) what is happening and why.
4. Frenchie as a plot device.
Frenchie also serves as a link between this film and the other films in the same universe. However, what I'm not too happy about is the fact that Frenchie becomes possessed in the end despite the demon being vanquished by the blood of Jesus - shouldn't the fact that the demon was vanquished also destroy any remnants it had tried to infect people with?
Because there was one point where the novitiate nun was possessed as well, but for some reason she ends the film perfectly fine.
5. Why do evil spirits come up with the most convoluted ways to kill people?
Among some of the methods they come up with - powering up a radio to play jazz (despite there being no electricity, which begs the question: why is there a radio in the room in the first place); creating apparitions of praying nuns to encircle one of the main characters; creating a hallucination of a boy from the priest's past which magically shot a snake out, causing the priest to fall backwards into a coffin that is INSTANTLY covered over.
I give the movie a rating of 7/10 - the special effects were quite cool, a kinda fun way to waste 90 minutes (especially if you like supernatural horor), and I'm glad it didn't turn in to a Christian-bashing exercise.
In this episode of the TFAD Pod, I have a chat with one of the most forthright and scripturally-knowledgable Bible critics around today, Deborah Grace as we discuss her book, Crucifying The Bible, and the responses she has got.
In episode 66 of The Tall Friendly Atheist Dad Podcast, I give my friendly and thoughtful responses to Brax Hunter's video "10 Questions For Atheists In 2021".
This episode is made with much respect for Brax Haunter from Trinity Radio - and if the man responds, I'd love to respond to his responses! We can have a response-off!
In Episode 63 of The Tall Friendly Atheist Dad Podcast, I chat with long-time sparring partner and degree-qualified Christian, Lewis Ungit, about a number of topics including:
- The possibility of a worldwide flood - Joe Rogan bringing heat on Spotify - Being a positive example of interfaith dialogue. - Why GoFundMe are hypocritical - Racism, and in particular why arguments about the offense regarding the N-word is spurious - Whoopi Goldberg and her clanger.
The political party that forms the current Australian government has managed to get legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of religion to pass the lower house of federal Parliament
Which leads me to discuss the idea of the Religious Discrimination Bill. The summary of my feeling on the topics is as such:
The idea of protection from discrimination on the basis of YOUR religion is a great idea. But there is no protection from discrimination on the basis of THEIR religion.
Someone shouldn't kick you out of a workplace because you're a Christian. But you shouldn't also be kicked out of a workplace run by Christians because you’re an atheist.
However, one of the biggest battlegrounds is over the right of religious schools to expel students on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. Two vocal groups, the Australian Christian Lobby and Christian School Australia, are quite upset that 5 government MPs have voted to have Section 38-3 of the Sex Discrimination Act, the right of faith-based schools to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, marital status, etc, removed.
But let me put it like this - if you need special legislation to circumvent anti-discrimination laws to allow you the free and unfettered practice of your religion, what does that say about your religion?
I agree that people shouldn't be discriminated against for their religious belief - but we also have to make sure that discrimination isn't practiced in the name of religion. We also shouldn't be providing protection against mere belief.
For example, let's take wedding cakes - there is no religion that explicitly prevents the baking of wedding cakes or other foodstuffs for the celebration of a same-sex marriage. Actually, there is no religion that mandates the baking of cakes for marriages - period. So we can't say that refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage is a religious principle.
Yet, and we have already seen this in other parts of the world, religious belief gets tied in with cultural belief - for example, if a Christian baker feels offended about having to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding, it is not entirely unreasonable that under this legislation, the baker can refuse to make the cake.
The other problem I have is that over the last 40 years, we've been trying to reduce the legality of discrimination and the avenues available for people to be discriminated against. Unless the legislation is changed to prevent active discrimination against people, this legislation is a bad idea.
Recently, the famous actress, comedienne and talk show host Whoopi Goldberg dropped what could only be considered a clanger when she said:
The meat of her comments I want to tackle are this:
"Well, this is White people doing it to White people, so y'all gonna fight amongst yourselves," Goldberg said, referring to the Holocaust.
While none of the co-hosts pushed back after that statement, the conversation then turned to how some are attempting to ban problematic parts of the nation's history, particularly history dealing with race and racism, from being taught in schools.
Goldberg responded: "If you're going to do this, then let's be truthful about it because the Holocaust isn't about race." She added that the Holocaust, which saw an estimated 6 million Jews and 5 million others killed as a result of the Nazis' racist ideology, was about "man's inhumanity to man" and said it involved "two White groups of people."
So, was Ms. Goldberg wrong when she said her now infamous comments? Were the Jews persecuted because of their race, or was race nothing to do with it and it was simply "man's inhumanity to man"?
From my perspective, saying that the Jews were persecuted because of "man's inhumanity to man" rather than race is like saying that "guns don't kill people - people do" - a somewhat correct (though asinine) statement that overlooks so many inconvenient truths.
Yes, the Jews (as well as other people groups) were rounded up by the Nazi forces because man has an ongoing history of treating their fellow men inhumanely - but it's also hard to ignore that race was a part of it. To me, the Holocaust was three-factored: race, religion and finance.
Let me fill in the picture for you:
We first have to consider the backdrop of Post-WW1 Europe. By the time Hitler rose to power around the 1930s, Germany was struggling to pay back the reparations forced on it as part of the Treaty Of Versailles. Inflation had spiralled out of control, the most profitable industrial areas had to be ceded to the French and unemployment was the norm, not an exception. If the Treaty of Versailles was designed to cripple Germany, consider it mission accomplished.
So what do you do when you see things are bad and you want to get to power? You create a scapegoat, and for various reasons, the Jews of Europe became that scapegoat. Hitler first took leadership of the NSDAP, then the NSDAP did well at consecutive elections by making various promises to the people to restore the country to its former glory (sound familiar?) and he eventually took power in Germany, all while maintaining and fuelling the rage of the lower-class and downtrodden - in much the same way that anarcho-communists today use the plight of those trodden over by Capitalism to make their points.
And so we come to the financial reason for what eventually became the Holocaust. The trope being spread (particularly via propaganda) was that Jews were making themselves rich at the expense of the Germans, especially the ones struggling to pay back the reparations.
So by having the Jews arrested and expropriating their property (ostensibly to help build up the war chest), you kill two birds with one stone - you get rid of the Jews, as well as get easy money.
We also need to consider the religious reason for what became The Holocaust. Even before his time, but most famously around the time Martin Luther was a thought leader in Christendom, Jews had suffered persecution in various forms. Luther, in his anger towards the Jews for not converting to Christianity en masse, wrote two books - "On The Jews And Their Lies" and "Of The Unknowable Name And The Generations Of Christ" which essentially set the stage for anti-Semitism in Germany going forward.
There is much debate about how sincere a Christian that Adolf Hitler was, but it's very hard to argue that he didn't have what we may call a cultural form of Christian identity, and it's even harder to argue that he didn't get inspiration from Luther's writings, to the point that Hitler was quoted as saying that Luther was the first "spiritual Fuhrer of Germany".
So now Hitler has a religious reason to persecute the Jews - get rid of the Jews, and allow Germany to become a proper Christian society!
And lastly, we have race, which I will touch on briefly again. Now, we have to acknowledge that race and ethnicity are very hard to both define and distinguish, and while Whoopi Goldberg may be kinda correct that it was "two White groups of people", again, it's not the whole picture. Hitler, but more so his inner-circle, believed that the Aryan race were the supreme race on earth. And what distinguished Aryans? According to Wikipedia:
The purest stock of Aryans according to Nazi ideology was the Nordic people of Germany, England, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. The Nazis defined Nordics as being identified by tall stature (average 175 cm), long faces, prominent chins, narrow and straight noses with a low bridge, lean builds, doliocephalic skulls, straight light hair, light eyes, and fair skin.
How many Jews do you know with light straight hair, light eyes, fair skin and tall stature? Not many. The Jews are essentially Middle-Eastern peoples who have a more olive complexion and darker features, not Nordics who are pale in comparison.
Goldberg may have been trying to infer that it was white people against not-quite-so-white people, but this is somewhat racist in itself because it assumes that all white people are all part of the same tribe who would normally get along, if it wasn't for that pesky inhumanity that keeps getting in the way.
Need I remind readers of the Troubles in Ireland (British Whites vs Irish Whites), the Civil War (Northern Whites vs Southern Whites), the 30-Years War (Catholic Whites vs Protestant Whites), as well as the ongoing tensions between Serbians (not-quite-so-whites) and Croatians (also not-quite-so-white).
So in essence, Hitler launched a persecution campaign against the Jews because they (apparently) had wealth, were causing problems for Christians, and were not like the European heroes of old - and who better to scapegoat when you want to make Europe a strong, prosperous and racially-superior society?
On a personal note, I don't think she should be cancelled. However, I think the suspension kinda had to be handed out to help the heat die down.
I also want to say that this episode highlights the dangers of live discussion on live TV about hot-button subjects - as a podcaster who has taken part in many live discussions and sometimes without proper preparation, I get that it's easy to be caught on the hop. It happens.
Anyway, let's live, love and learn, and til next time, stay safe.
This post is a little off-topic as it doesn't revolve around religion.
Buzzfeed, some years ago, posted a video titled "36 Questions For Men", in which various women ask questions of men in a somewhat accusatory manner.
I've always wanted to make a response, so here it is.
-----
1. How does it feel to be the same sex as Donald Trump?
It doesn't bother me one bit.
Firstly, I am also the same gender as people both famous and infamous such as Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Milo Yiannopoulos, Justin Trudeau, Samuel L. Jackson and many others.
Secondly, people can be as brash and abrasive and foolhardy as they want to be, gender not being a barrier.
Thirdly, one could easily reply, "How does it feel the be the same gender as Elizabeth Bathory, one of history's first serial killers, or Elizabeth Holmes, convicted of one of the largest instances of wire fraud in US legal history?", but these kind of snide questions do nothing to improve understanding and dialogue.
---
2. Why do you hate rom-coms?
I don't hate rom-coms per se. I just hate the unrealistic expectations displayed in them, especially ones such as the handsome guy who has a stable job, no mental health issues and barely any body fat (though 'As Good As It Gets' did help turn the tide).
No, I'm not romantic. I'm a realist. Couldn't you tell.
---
3. Or do you just feel like you need to hate them?
I agree that a pinch of masculine pride gets in the way, but one could also easily question why women don't get excited about sports documentaries.
The young and foolhardy version of me instantly hated rom-coms. The current version of me just doesn't care.
---
4. Why do you make women sit around talk about men in movies, when y'all easily just sit around and talk about boobs for hours?
I have never made a movie, so I can't give a qualified answer either way. If it grieves you so much, why don't you make a movie that has women talking about men's cocks?
I can honestly say I've never sat around with a bunch of the boys for hours talking about boobs.
Also, the fact is that women are just as hard on other women - especially with regards to physical appearance - as men are accused of being.
A woman can wear the same outfit to work all week, the men wouldn't care, but I can guarantee you that it would be the other women who would be making judgemental and make catty remarks.
Just check out this below clip and tell me that men are the problem:
---
5. Why do you automatically assume that you won’t like TV or movies that star a female lead?
A TV show or movie with a female lead doesn't bother me, and I don't know anyone who is prejudiced against a TV show or movie simply because of the gender of the lead actor.
Just to prove my feminist credentials, I recommend you stream "What Keeps You Alive" and "No-One Gets Out Alive" - two awesome horror films with female leads.
---
6. Why are you surprised when women are funny?
I'm not surprised. Women can be funny and I personally know very funny women. Joan Rivers is a goddess. The whole world mourned when we lost the universally-loved Betty White.
If men were really as sexist as what the question implies, the follow-up should be "Why are you surprised when men aren't funny?".
---
7. Why do you think that we’re obsessed with you when we hook up?
I have no answer either way. I'm not the hook-up kind.
However I think in some cases, sometimes the woman is obsessed, and sometimes men misread interpersonal cues.
And just on that - there seems to be this unspoken line where men are though to be desperate if they're too quick to make contact, or distant or evasive if they hold off. Talk about prejudicial expectations...
---
8. Why can’t I sleep with as many people as I want to without being judged?
In many cases, it's actually women judging other women for sexual activity. So don't just ask this question of men - ask this question of your mothers, your sisters and your grandmothers, especially of those in conservative ethnic groups.
--
9. Why do you consider a woman a tease if she doesn't sleep with you three dates, but a slut if she sleeps with you on the first date?
Again, I don't.
I actually avoided this problem because I met my wife when I spent my younger years in a Protestant evangelical cult.
I dodged one bullet...and got hit by another.
---
10. In what world does no mean yes?
In a world where men have a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to run one of them at a time - which is this world.
I'll agree that men do need to do better in this regard.
---
11. Why do you say that women are too emotional to be leaders, then justify catcalling by saying men just can’t control themselves?
Part 1 - Again, I don't. I can honestly say that I don't remember ever criticising a female in a position of power for being "too emotional", and I can't ever remember being with anyone who has catcalled.
And on the converse, I've worked with and for numerous men who couldn't keep their emotions in check.
Part 2 - Again, I don't. A man who admits he can't control himself is not worth being around, in any context.
---
12. Why do you think that just because you’re nice to me, I owe you my body?
Again, I don't.
Some men do, and those men aren't worth the time of day, so I suggest learn how to avoid that type, and to combat bad attitudes.
And this goes for everyone - the more we learned how to avoid jerks and starve them of oxygen, the better society would be.
---
13. Why would you ever send an unsolicited **** pic?
Don't know. Not something I've ever felt the need to do.
---
14. Why do you feel like it’s OK to harass women or make offensive comments about women but when somebody does it to your sister it’s not OK?
Again, I don't harass women.
Maybe Buzzfeed's video should have instead been called "36 Questions For Our Feminist Caricature Of Men"
---
15. How does it feel to interrupt me when I’m in the middle of making a point during a meeting?
I've never interrupted you during a meeting. Even better, I try avoid meetings. You should be thanking me :-)
---
16. Why do you have to sit with your legs so wide open?
Because men have testicles, and despite what misconceptions you may have, testicles are an interactive part of our body, just like feet and ears.
Imagine you had two ping-pong balls between your breasts, but these were magical ping-pong balls that were heat and contact-sensitive - you would only be able to enclose them and squish them for so long before you needed to give them space. Therefore, a mild amount of space is required, and men give their nads breathing space by moving the only limb available to do so - the legs.s
True, any man who negligently or crudely takes an unnecessary amount of space is a d*ck. But they're going to be d*cks anyway.
---
17. Why are women perceived as the weaker sex even though we literally birth you?
Well, men do hold all of the weightlifting records...
But pain tolerance is not an indication of physical strength or emotional maturity, and even during childbirth, the number one thing women ask for are drugs, epidurals or caesarians.
---
18. Why is it so bad to show your emotions?
It isn't. My only expectation is that whatever emotion you display, keep it in proportion to the situation at hand.
I cringe as much at the road rager as I do at the Karen as I do at the person complaining the paper tray on the printer that they didn't buy doesn't hold enough paper.
---
19. Why are you always trying to prove your masculinity to me?
Any man who feels they do need to prove their masculinity would likely do so because they're deep-down insecure.
---
20. Why the **** isn’t it ladylike to cuss?
Don't know about you, but I love it when women swear.
---
21. When did words get genders?
Probably at about the same time that they were created.
But I find it ironic that Buzzfeed have a problem with western culture using English that has some words that are colloquially gendered (particularly in nautical circles) without realising the irony that:
One, the word 'bitch' was appropriated from the field of zoology to mean something it was never meant to, and;
Two, languages like German, Spanish and Indonesian are actually structurally gendered. For example, in German, when you learn a word, you have to learn not only the word, not only the gender, but also the case, otherwise you end up saying something completely different (and possibly offensive).
---
22. Why is it your first instinct to doubt women who have been sexually violated or raped?
One of the founding principles of our justice system is the presumption of innocence, and publicly spreading rumours of alleged sexual assault prior to a trial actually contributes to a miscarriage of justice - ensuring that the alleged perpetrator won't face justice for their crimes!
This isn't to say we shouldn't give every available assistance to those who have been violated and traumatised. My point, though, would be that to accuse someone of sexual assault is very serious, and there is a difference between believing and encouraging a victim, and propagating unfounded allegations.
Plus, on numerous occasions, false rape claims have been made that have damaged people's careers and lives - so we need to strike that balance.
So it's not that I doubt women, I just reserve judgement until the facts of the matter are established.
---
23. Why do you assume a woman’s angry because she’s on her period?
Because it's statistically more likely than other explanations.
---
24. Why do you think women that wear makeup are false advertising?
Isn't that what makeup is supposed to do - cover over blemishes and variations to present a veneer?
---
25. We could say the same thing about your **** size.
OK. But then that's playing in to the very same sexism that you are rallying against.
---
26. Why isn’t it weird that there’s a bunch of old white men sitting in a room making legislation about what I can and can’t do with my body?
One. Those same unspecified old white men make decisions about my body as well, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals and mental health treatment, so you're not the only victim.
Two. If you don't like the fact that there's a bunch of old white men, then don't vote for old white men, or even better, get people to vote for the non-old non-white non-men so you can be part of the momentum behind the change the change you want to see in the law.
But Buzzfeed are exposing their hypocrisy - by complaining about old white men, they're using ageist, racist and sexist terms to rally against ageism, racism and sexism.
---
27. Why are straight guys so obsessed with lesbians?
Not all straight guys are obsessed with lesbians. I can tell you I'm not.
I think the team at Buzzfeed need to go past the stereotypes and have a proper, constructive conversation with someone who has views opposing to theirs.
But then this is the problem with modern journalism - Outrage generates clicks. People who need to make money from their content wouldn't interview mild-mannered old me - they'll find a hardcore Men's Rights Activist or Anti-Vaxxer or someone else of an extreme position, interview them and then act as if that extreme person is representative of all people who share the same opinion.
---
28. How does it feel to get kicked in the balls?
It fucking hurts.
Go on to YouTube and look at MMA fights ended by groin shots. If a guy whose living is made by being beaten up and having his body twisted has to stop a fight because of a well-placed nut shot, that should give you an indication of how painful it is.
---
29. Do you ever get tired of trying to be manly all the time?
This is such a vapid and pointless question.
---
30. Why are you so afraid of gender equality?
I'm not. I'm more scared of those who push a socially-acceptable form of sexism to pretend that they're fighting sexism, and then those people pretend they aren't being sexist because their sexism is the good sexism, or that their sexism falls outside of a hyper-narrow definition of sexism that somehow only white men fit in to (in the same vein as reverse racism).
--
31. Why do I deserve to be paid less than you?
You don't. I would expect a person with my experience and my skills and my business acumen to earn at least as much as I do.
--
32. In what world does 77 cents equal a dollar?
I don't disagree that a gender pay gap exists, but it doesn't exist because of the reasons feminists say it exists.
Firstly, it is against all discrimination law that is out there to pay salary inequitably due to gender. If there was a company that was paying women less than men for the same job, they would be liable under the multitude of enforcement procedures out there.
Secondly, men typically earn more than women over a lifetime because men typically work in more hazardous professions that also happen to be higher paying in line with the shortened shelf-life of the people in those professions. Construction, mining, logging, for example - these are all hazardous professions that also just happen to be done willingly by men.
Thirdly, even between men, there is a pay gap. I, as an IT technician, get paid a lot less than the aforementioned construction, mining or logging workers.
--
33. Why are you intimidated by a woman who makes more money than you?
I'm not. I'm more peeved off by people - both men and women - who use their salary/job title/profession/bank balance as reason to look down on people and act like jerks.
I've met numerous women who make more money than me. Not an issue.
--
34. Why are opinionated women seen as *****es?
For much the same reason that opinionated men are seen as wankers and assholes.
--
35. Why aren’t you speaking up when you hear your male friends behind closed doors make jokes that are offensive to women?
For much the same reason women don't speak up when they hear someone make an offensive joke about men - because they're too busy laughing behind closed doors to be worried about someone distant's feelings.
It's when the offense is brought to the intended victim in order to inflict psychological/emotional harm that we need to worry about. But jokes behind closed doors are just that - jokes, and behind closed doors.
What feminists also forget is that for decades, womens magazines such as New Idea ran a column called Mere Male where women wrote in with stories of men doing dumb things with the idea that women are intellectually superior, hence mere male.
--
36. Why are you so afraid of recognizing your own privilege?
Two reasons:
One: I don't see what actual gender-based privilege exists. We in Australia have very few provisions for favouring one gender over another. Anything that engenders sexism is actually illegal (unless it's affirmative action, which is, in reality, government-sanctioned sexism).
Two: What privilege do men get? The privilege of public toilets that smell like cocks?
The privilege of having a shorter average life span?
The privilege of being more likely to die from cancer?
The privilege of being more like to be arrested and incarcerated?
The privilege of losing custody of children?
The privilege of being more likely to die in a road accident, in a workplace accident, or by being murdered?
The privilege of having to pay more for vehicle insurance?
The privilege of being ridiculed for sex work?
Please, tell me what privilege you think I have that you want.
In this episode of The Tall Friendly Atheist Dad Podcast, I recount one of the handful of moments in my life that, as an atheist, makes me sit and wonder if I really did receive assistance in my time of need in the form of divine benevolence.
Listen to the story of "Was That An Angel I Just Saw?" and don't forget to leave your thoughts on either the website, the Twitter feed or on Facebook!
This episode is Part 1 of a 4-episode response series from an atheistic perspective to Off The Kirb Ministries’ video titled “Dear Christian, This Is Why You Never Mess With Pornography”, a Christian polemic about the supposed evils of pornography and how to cope with pornography addiction.
Be warned: some of my responses are light-hearted and/or crass, there are times I break out in uncontrollable laughter, and the topic at hand is - of course - of a sexual nature.
Sometimes when you get what you want, it's not the end of your struggles. You close one door, but another one opens. The choices we make sometimes have unseen consequences that we have to deal with. The end of one episode is the beginning of another episode. And sometimes the birthday present you unwrap turns out to be Pandora's Box.
This episode of the podcast is titled Lessons From Life: The Job Of My Prayers Made My Church Upset where I recount an episode from my time in my Fundamentalist church where the job I had been praying for got me in trouble with my church leadership.
Have you had a similar experience in your church? Do you think your church is controlling? Let me know in the comments.
So, the final report in to the claims of sexual misconduct by Ravi Zacharias has come out. And while we don't have his side of the story, unfortunately, there is enough material to conclusively prove he was complicit in abuse and misconduct.
I would urge you to read the whole report for yourself, just so you are informed for yourself. It's no use burying your head in the sand. Ravi wasn't the first high-profile Christian thought leader to be found behaving badly, and he won't be the last, but we do need to make ourselves aware of high-profile people using their power and authority to abuse others, especially those who are vulnerable.
Yes. This was abuse. There are no bones about it. Not just abuse, but manipulation, secrecy and control - exactly what cults do.
I applaud the willingness by RZIM to engage an independent firm to conduct investigations, and for releasing that report. My advice to them would be to now drop the RZ from RZIM and make a new start. RZIM was built of the public profile of RZ, and now we know RZ was a creep.
I am now going to comment on certain aspects of the report.
EMPLOYMENT AND CORPORATE PRACTICES:
The fact that the two spas he allegedly co-owned hired very few, if any, therapists with proper training or qualifications is damning enough in itself. If indeed he did own the massage therapy places, it really does read like he set up massage therapy businesses simply to make a cynical dollar.
Set up a massage therapy place, hire low skilled and unlicensed people, pay them minimum wage, done!
To quote the report:
"We refer to all of them as “therapists” or “massage therapists,” although as this report reveals not all of the individuals who provided Mr. Zacharias with massage services were trained and licensed therapists." and;
"One spa he frequented was closed down, and its owner’s massage therapy license revoked, for hiring unlicensed therapists."
To further quote the report:
"Mr. Zacharias is not listed on incorporation documents filed with the Georgia Secretary of State for either company, and he did not appear to have any role in managing the day-to-day operations of the spas. He told one massage therapist he was a silent investor in both spas…"
Which means Ravi was lying to someone: either he was lying to the massage therapist when he said he was a silent investor, or he was lying to the government when his name somehow did not get listed on any corporate paperwork for the businesses.
This, to me, is a cynical ploy to take the credit, but deflect responsibility - "I'm the famous man of God, and when things are going well, look at the money I'm secretly making…but if things go wrong, I know nothing!"
INTERACTIONS WITH THERAPISTS:
The report notes that while he was professional with numerous massage therapists, there were a number of them who he took advantage of, or definitely attempted to take advantage of.
To quote the report:
"Several massage therapists confirmed Mr. Zacharias’s frequent efforts to “try for more than a massage,” as one therapist put it. Eight therapists reported that Mr. Zacharias would start the massage either completely nude or would remove the sheets during the massage. Six therapists reported that he always or almost always had an erection during the massage. Four therapists reported that he would either touch his genitals or ask them to touch his genitals. And five therapists reported that he touched or rubbed them inappropriately."
But what is concerning is that he played off of his reputation and his charm to get people to drop their defences:
"…aspects of Mr. Zacharias’s behavior towards this witness were similar to his conduct with other therapists, specifically: the use of ministry funds to provide financial support, the effort to elicit personal information about a difficult past, and Mr. Zacharias’s use of religious language during their encounters…She reported that after he arranged for the ministry to provide her with financial support, he required sex from her. According to this witness, Mr. Zacharias used religious expressions to gain compliance, as she was raised to be a person of faith. She reported that he made her pray with him to thank God for the “opportunity” they both received".
"The therapists he reportedly targeted for “more than a massage” discussed a similar modus operandi of building their trust and making them feel at ease. As one put it, he “wasn’t frisky initially.” Some therapists described a process that began with probing conversation and him asking about their families and backgrounds, often delving into deeply personal issues such as financial struggles or emotionally broken backgrounds"
"Another therapist also refused when he asked her to “go lower” and massage closer to his genitals, and she admonished him on several occasions when he would start touching himself. He asked this same person to travel overseas to massage him on trips, but she was not comfortable with him and was afraid she would not be able to afford a plane ticket home if she felt the need to return early."
This man is not creepy at all. No.
You have to remember that Ravi is effectively their boss, if his reported words to the therapist are to be believed. As an investor, he wields a form of authority.
SECRETIVE TRIPS TO ASIA:
The report notes that Ravi would travel to Asia, often alone, where he would write books by day, and get treatment on his back at night.
"In addition to finding alone time when he travelled with others, Mr. Zacharias travelled alone to Bangkok and other parts of Southeast Asia for substantial periods of time. RZIM staff described these as writing trips where he would work on his latest book. On such trips, he would stay for days and sometimes weeks alone. According to a text message to a Thai masseuse in February 2016, he spent his days writing and his nights receiving massage treatments."
"We also learned that for several years, Mr. Zacharias owned two apartments in Bangkok…between 2010 and 2014 he spent a total of 256 days in one of these apartments…the other apartment, in the same building but on a different floor, housed one of his massage therapists. An entry on Mr. Zacharias’s phone for the lower floor unit includes this massage therapist’s initials."
Why travel to south-east Asia to write a book and get massage therapy, when you could easily find solitude in places much closer to home and find licensed professionals to do the job?
To me, there is no way that he's spending long periods of time, alone, in one of the hotspots of Asian sex tourism, and not having illicit sex.
FINANCIAL SECRETS:
On top his two apartments, one which was used to house his personal masseuse, was this:
"between 2010 and 2014 he spent a total of 256 days in one of these apartments and sought rent reimbursement from RZIM for those stays"
I think it's a bit cynical to seek money from your company to stay in places that you already own. The only way I would excuse this is as a tax dodge. Otherwise, it comes across as being cynical and greedy.
We also come to his slush fund.
"Mr. Zacharias also used his ministry to financially support some of his long-term therapists. According to a description in the Notes application of one of Mr. Zacharias’s phones, Touch of Hope (“TOH”) was a “humanitarian effort on the part of RZIM meeting short term needs for long term gains.” We learned it was a purely discretionary fund and no clear guidelines governing how money would be granted….in reviewing documents provided by RZIM we noticed that a significant portion of the wire payments from that fund went to or for the benefit of four women—all of whom were at times Mr. Zacharias’s massage therapists…each of these four women received monthly support from TOH for extended periods of time."
This now raises a valid question - when an ordinary person donates to a famous (or even not-so-famous) Christian ministry, we have a right to know what percentage of that goes to hush money, discretionary spending on women who do the famous preacher sexual favours, money to reimburse someone for staying in properties they already own, etc.
In Australia, we have what is called the Charities & Not-For-Profit Commission (CNC), in which every organisation that wants a tax break for charitable or religious purposes has to submit yearly reports, much like a corporation does. Maybe the US needs something like that as well.
PHOTOS OF WOMEN:
The report also notes that Ravi had been sent images of numerous photos of women, by those women, and his multiple electronic devices stored photos of those women in various states of undress.
Now, if those women willingly and knowingly did so, this actually isn't a problem. Sexual communication between two willing participants is not a moral crime in itself. The downside of this is that I really don't want to to think about Ravi Zacharias sending his own nudes in return - the mental image of wrinkly preacher dick turns me off my lunch. The only saving grace is that cameras on phones 10 years ago weren't as sharp as they are now, so at least it's not 4K HDR photos of wrinkly preacher dick…
But what I suspect is that he maniupated numerous women in to sending those compromising photos of themselves, using that veneer of charm, confidence, security and safety that he is known for. This then becomes is a moral crime.
USE OF THE VENEER OF RESPECTABILITY AND PASSIVE-AGGRESSION TO DEFLECT CRITICISM:
To me, the most egregious violation of ethics is highlighted by these lines of the report:
"A high-level RZIM staff member expressed concerns to Mr. Zacharias about it and encouraged him to stop travelling with her. In response, Mr. Zacharias grew angry and barely spoke to this staff member for a long period of time. He was effectively “sent to Siberia,” as another staff member recalled. Their relationship never fully recovered."
And this:
"Several RZIM staff reported to us his “shifting narrative” as emails and other relevant facts were publicly leaked and he was forced to explain them. Rather than fostering an environment of truth-seeking and transparency, Mr. Zacharias was strident and inflammatory. He described his critics as “nasty people” and “lunatics” who were engaging in “‘satanic-type’ slander and falsehood.” Some RZIM staff told us that he expressed frustration with having to issue an apology at all. He was able to convince many that not only was he innocent, he was the victim of malicious “evil.” At an all-staff virtual meeting in January 2018, after significant details of the Thompson communications had been made public, Mr. Zacharias offered explanations that many staff members found nonsensical. But some staff members reported to us that when they expressed doubts about Mr. Zacharias’s story, they were ignored, marginalized, and accused of disloyalty"
And this:
"Another former RZIM staff member reported similar treatment from Mr. Zacharias when he raised questions about Mr. Zacharias’s conduct in and solo travel to Asia. As a result, he was “demonized” by Mr. Zacharias, who accused him of spreading rumors."
And this:
"Mr. Zacharias’s response to the Thompson allegations—including explanations of his emails with Ms. Thompson that surfaced on the internet—raised questions about his credibility. We interviewed witnesses within RZIM who were not satisfied with Mr. Zacharias’s explanations, and some reported their belief that they were marginalized for raising questions."
Ravi CLEARLY used his power, in the form of manipulation, ostracisation and demonisation in order to deflect criticism. And furthermore, his own staff only found out about the incriminating information via leaks. This is how cults work. Control information, come down hard on people who even DARE to criticise the great leader, selectively ostracise.
It's interesting to note that Jesus said, "if you are at the altar and remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift at the altar, be reconciled to your brother and then come back and offer your gift". It seems Ravi had a selective memory.
I was also quite taken aback by this:
"In response, Mr. Zacharias sued the Thompsons in federal court for extortion under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute on July 31, 2017. The Thompsons and Mr. Zacharias mediated and confidentially resolved their disputes in late fall 2017. The resolution reportedly included a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”)."
Ravi Zacharias, a man who represents God to the world and who trades off his reputation as a righteous man, sued a woman who he manipulated in to sending nude photos to him, under legislation meant to tackle organised crime and drug cartels. RICO has been used to charge the Hells Angels, the Gambino crime family and FIFA, and now this man used RICO to effectively persecute a woman who did his own bidding for the crime of making known that she wasn't going to cop his manipulation anymore.
