The last several months have seen more than a little interest in the beliefs and activities of political figures, an occurrence that frankly stymies me. The first flap was over whether President Barack Obama is Christian or Muslim, the second around Delaware Republican Senate candidate’s 1999 admission that she “dabbled” in witchcraft in high school.

For the purposes of clarity and disclosure, I consider myself politically neutral. I don’t support any particular political party and I don’t participate in political activities — including voting — but I respect your right to do so if you choose and won’t interfere with your choice.

Maybe it’s my position as an “outsider” to the political process that’s leaving me confused. But I seem to remember learning in school about this crazy thing called separation between church and state, and this other thing called freedom of religion. And since I seem to remember those things being kind of fundamental to the founding of the country, I’m a bit baffled as to why anyone cares about the religious beliefs of political figures. As a general rule in this country, we seem to expect that our most of our politicians have association with some faith or organized religion. Does it really matter which one?

Presumably, Obama was elected by a population that supported his political views and thought he would be a good political leader for the nation. Unless I missed something really important in Mrs. Jensen’s class in seventh grade, I don’t think his job is to provide religious or otherwise spiritual guidance or direction. His job is to oversee the running of the country. Where and whether he worships aren’t part of the job description, right? So who cares? And WHY?

As far as O’Donnell goes, most Americans seem to think of The Craft, Blair Witch Project, and maybe Harry Potter when they think of witches. But regardless of how you may feel about it, witchcraft is legitimately a religion. Wicca, the religion with which modern practitioners of witchcraft largely identify, has a specific theology, symbology, and practice. (A number of practitioners have pointed out in the media that what O’Donnell described in her 1999 Politically Incorrect clip doesn’t match up with Wicca, but that’s another conversation entirely, and one that doesn’t belong on this blog.)

Whether O’Donnell was “dabbling” in Wicca, Satanism (which, incidentally, does also have a theology, symbology, etc.), or something else entirely isn’t really relevant. What matters is that like anyone else in this country, she has the right to practice or explore whatever religion she chooses. She’s been variously identified as a Protestant and a Catholic — generally conservative either way — and no one seemed to have an issue with that. But this witchcraft thing, well, it’s a big controversy. Said one publication, “It is one thing to be against masturbation, it is quite another to admit that you took part in pagan rituals and attended a picnic on a Satanic altar.” It’s religion either way, so again, who cares? And why?

Political viewpoints causing strife and controversy in a political setting makes sense to me, but religious viewpoints having the same effect is beyond me — at least, for a country that professes freedom of religion and separation between church and state.

The last six weeks of my life have been punctuated by awkward phone calls full of bad news, visits to one hospital after another, and sleepless nights on uncomfortable chairs in sterile rooms. Although my family has been historically pretty healthy, we’ve been dropping like flies lately. My current illness, a particularly persistent cold that’s been making me miserable for weeks, is the least of it.

There’s something very humbling about watching someone you love die. The last time I saw my uncle before I went to Maryland to help transfer him into hospice, he was competing in triathalons. Ten, maybe fifteen years later, he was under 100 lbs, in excruciating pain, and recognized me only every other time he was awake. It had been ages since we’d spoken, and it was more than a little surreal to be there at his bedside, talking him though panic attacks and helping him with everything to eating to changing the channel on the TV to urinating. The basic things of life become so important, and everything else is just parenthetical.

He’s been transferred back out of hospice into a long-term care facility now, and he has good days and bad days. He is dying, no doubt about that. And faster than you or I am, most likely. But when it will actually happen is completely up in the air. My guess is sooner rather than later, but what do I know — I didn’t think he would last this long.

I also didn’t think I’d be back in a hospital room again so soon. This time, I’m with my brother, who — thankfully — is not dying. He’s one of the lucky ones. Late last night he was in a car accident that left the driver and one passenger dead at the scene, and my brother and another passenger battered, bruised, but alive. If they hadn’t been wearing their seatbelts, A. and R. would have been thrown from the car and killed instantly like the other two.

Instead, A. and R. now will live their lives with the memory of last night, with the sounds of crunching metal and breaking glass etched into their memory in a cruel loop, the smell of scorched rubber burned into their nostrils, the sensation of rolling over and over with a narrow strip of webbing cutting into their chests as the only thing standing between them and oblivion impressed into their limbs. They will live with horror and fear and guilt and anger. They will live with sadness with a weight so great that it will be almost unbearable. But they will live.

A.’s sleep is punctuated by muscle jerks, caught breath, and frowning expressions that cross his swollen and stitched face. I can’t imagine what he is dreaming about right now, and I don’t want to. It would have been a blessing for him to have been knocked unconscious, but no — he remembers everything. I hope the pain medication is strong enough that he is sleeping dreamlessly, that I’m reading too much into the normal twitches and facial calisthenics that come with much-needed sleep. But I fear that he’s watching an encore of the accident over and over in his head.

How do you navigate your life after something like this happens? How do you manage it after it happens twice? Last month, less than 30 days ago, was the anniversary of our younger brother’s death. In the seven years after Jesse died, we all struggled. A. had finally found another brother, a family member of choice, to fill that role in his life, to be there for him, support him, have fun with him, all those things siblings do for one another. And now this brother is gone, too.

I don’t believe it is anyone’s “time” to die. We grieve because our hearts were made for eternity. Life is filled with abrupt endings, and knowing they’re coming doesn’t prepare us or lessen the blow. It’s not in our nature to know how to handle death. That’s why it’s so miserable.

There’s nothing natural about it. Only final.

(www.sass-pants.com) — A tweet from Divapalooza led me to an article about the concept of biblical grounds for divorce. Author Shane Vader Hart does a beautiful job of explicating some key scriptures surrounding this issue, but I think there’s more to the issue.

As Hart points out, God hates divorce. When a man and woman marry, they are to become one flesh. Under Mosaic law, divorce was permitted as a concession, not as a commandment. But Jesus said that “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness ["fornication," KJV], and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:8-9), and Christ’s teachings cancelled out the Mosaic Law (see also Ephesians 2).

Does Jesus explicitly say that divorce is prohibited? In the preceding verses is this exchange:

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

If divorce isn’t man separating what God has joined together, I don’t know what is — so I think we can safely conclude that Jesus was not pro-divorce. But did he rule it out completely? He said “anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness [fornication].” In the event of one partner’s unfaithfulness, the innocent partner has the option to divorce the offending spouse without fear of committing adultery if he or she remarries. (Widows are free to remarry without fear of committing adultery because death breaks the marriage bond.)

Husband is to impart honor to his wife, love her as he loves his own body, and provide for his family both materially and spiritually. But not every husband does that, which is the point Hart is commenting on in . What happens when a husband is abusive toward his wife? He may beating the ever-loving crap out of her, but not cheating on her. What can the wife do? Here’s one take on it that I heartily support:

Should the battered wife leave her husband? The Bible does not treat marital separation lightly. At the same time, it does not oblige a battered wife to stay with a man who jeopardizes her health and perhaps her very life. The Christian apostle Paul wrote: “If she should actually depart, let her remain unmarried or else make up again with her husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:10-16) Since the Bible does not forbid separation in extreme circumstances, what a woman does in this matter is a personal decision. (Galatians 6:5) No one should coax a wife to leave her husband, but neither should anyone pressure a battered woman to stay with an abusive man when her health, life, and spirituality are threatened.*

In other words, while a wife should not separate from her husband, if she must, she should stay single (and uninvolved, chickie, because you’re still a married woman and the last thing you want to do is be an adulteress when you’ve worked so hard to follow the rules so far) unless she reconciles with him. Divorce and separation are NOT the same thing. Divorce implies that you want to be free to marry someone else. Separation can mean many things, but in this case, it would mean that staying with your spouse endangers you and/or your children.

However, I would add that eventually the abusive husband, when he’s not getting any from his wife, will likely look elsewhere, which would give her scriptural grounds for divorce and the ability to remarry in good standing with God.

Is divorce in the case of adultery a scriptural requirement? Absolutely not. But it is permitted, and if a couple divorces because of it, the spouse who didn’t cheat would be free to remarry with a clean conscience. And while the Bible does not permit divorce for any other reason the scriptures certainly do not condone violence, especially toward someone who is supposed to be flesh of one’s own flesh:

Spouse abuse is a brazen violation of Bible principles. At Ephesians 4:29, 31, we read: “Let a rotten saying not proceed out of your mouth . . . Let all malicious bitterness and anger and wrath and screaming and abusive speech be taken away from you along with all badness.”

No husband who claims to be a follower of Christ can really say that he loves his wife if he abuses her. If he were to mistreat his wife, of what value would all his other good works be? …Can violent men change their behavior? Some have. Usually, however, a batterer will not change unless he (1) admits that his conduct is improper, (2) wants to change his course, and (3) seeks help. …Of course, for a batterer to change his behavior involves more than not hitting. It also entails learning a whole new attitude toward his wife. …There is no room for a despot, tyrant, or bully in the Christian family.—Ephesians 5:25, 28, 29.*

Hart concludes his post by asserting that there are no biblical grounds for divorce, but I disagree. When one has grounds for a lawsuit, that doesn’t mean one is required to sue someone; it simply means that he would be justified in doing so. The same is true for the Bible’s view on divorce: while the scriptures do not require it, they make it clear that fornication is grounds for divorce.

What do you think?

*The article this excerpt comes from is the third in a series. Start here and use the arrows at the bottom or the links on the left to read the whole thing.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(image)

(www.sass-pants.com) — This UK atheism advertising campaign has got me thinking about atheism. (Mission accomplished, Richard Dawkins and Ariane Sherine.) The campaign slogan is “There’s probably no God. Not stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Perhaps I have had a misunderstanding rather than an understanding of atheism all this time, but I though it was denial in the existence of God, not an admission of the possibility that there could be no God. So I’m confused. What exactly is atheism?

Web addict that I am, my first stop was Google, where I searched “atheism,” followed by a quick hop over to Twitter, where I tweeted,

In this post, I’ll share what I found via through my Google search.

Common trends:

• There are two types of atheism: strong and weak.
• Disbelief / lack of belief in a God or gods should not be confused with belief that there is no God or gods.
• Atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism are distinctive belief systems.

From the organization American Atheists’ About page:

An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.

According to Wikipedia’s Atheism entry:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.

The guide to Atheism / Agnosticism at About.com had this to say:

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

The “Definitions of the term ‘Atheism’” page at ReligiousTolerance.org reads:

Most of the North American public define an “Atheist” is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries — not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public’s word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

It is worth noting that most of the people of the world can be regarded as a type of Atheist. Of the Gods and Goddesses who have been worshiped down through the ages — Athena, Baal, Bacchus, Bast, Brahman, Bridget, Diana, Eostre, Fergus, Freya, Horus, Isis, Marduk, Mithras, Nerrivik, Odin, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Shiva, Sophia, Thor, Vishnu, Vulcan, Zeus, and thousands of others, the vast majority of people believe in only a few. Most believe in a single deity — the Trinity in Christianity, Allah in Islam, Yahweh in Judaism — and thus deny the existence of the thousands of other deities. Such people can be considered Atheists towards these other Gods and Goddesses. In the same way, Roman Pagans considered Christians to be Atheists in the early years of the Church, because followers of Jesus denied the existence of all of the dozens of Roman deities.

All About Philosophy’s Atheism page says:

There are two basic forms of atheism: “strong” atheism and “weak” atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God’s existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are “practical atheists” in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Finally, the BBC’s Religion & Ethics Page on Atheism says:

Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.

Now that we’ve got some “official definitions,” we’ll take a look at what atheism really means in practical terms in the next installment of this multipart exploration of atheism.

Questions? Suggestions? Opinions? Leave a comment.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — Mental Floss posted a handy, albeit not brilliantly written, article that discusses the origins of popular Christmas traditions, including the date, the American obsession with the holiday, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and Rudolph. You can read what they found here.

Me, I’ve done some research on these very topics myself, which led me to the decision that I don’t want anything to do with Christmas (see “No, Not Even Thanksgiving” for info on why I don’t celebrate that holiday). During Western European expansion into the rest of the world, Christian leaders adapted pagan traditions into acceptable practices by replacing many elements with Christian symbols and practices. One of the best-known instances of this is the revision of the Roman festival of Saturnalia, celebrating the birth of the sun, into a Christian celebration of the birth of the son of God, Jesus Christ. Many Christian beliefs and pagan traditions have been interwoven in what we now known as the Christmas season.

Jesus’ Birth

Historical evidence in the Bible account of Christ’s birth and other sources tells us that Christ was not actually born in December, but rather in October. This determination can be based on weather clues in the Gospels that indicate that the shepherds were sleeping with their flocks in the fields at night at the time of Jesus’ birth, something that the cold rainy season that falls in December would have made impossible. Additional evidence comes from known the date of Jesus’ death and his age at his death. He was 33 and a half when he died on Nisan 15 on the Jewish calendar, which was April 3 in 2007 and will be April 20 in 2008. Counting backwards or forwards six months (because he was 33 and a HALF) puts us in October. So we know that Jesus was born in October, not December. Celebrating his birth on December 25 was a way to Christianize pagan traditions.

Interestingly, there is no command in the Bible that Jesus’ birth be celebrated or observed in any way. Its exact date is not even recorded, despite the fact that many other dates are preserved and discussed repeatedly in the Bible. And in fact, the scriptures seem to discourage any birthday celebrations, saying that the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1) and offering only 2 examples of birthdays in the Bible, in which horrific murders took place (Genesis 40:20-23, Matthew 14:6-13) including that of John the Baptizer. Jesus was nearby during Herod’s birthday celebration, but the scriptures make it clear that he did not attend.

However, Jesus himself commands that his death be commemorated at the last supper, which occurred on Passover and was to take its place (Matthew 26).

Santa Claus

The traditional symbol of Christmas is Santa Claus (also known as St. Nicholas, Pere Noel, Father Christmas, and many other titles around the world). The Santa we know today only really became firmly established in the American Christmas tradition in the early 1900s, though he made appearances as early as the 1800s.

Refined over time into the jolly, fat, red-suited bearded man we now know, Santa Claus is believed to be based in part on a real person, Catholic Bishop Nicholas, or St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas apparently delivered gifts to needy children and was supported by food (cookies, nuts, fruit, etc.) left out by parents and caregivers as he traveled the countryside.

Another theory of the origin of Santa Claus, and one perhaps better supported by the evidence, is that he is derived from either or both the Norse gods Odin/Woden or Thor. Thor is a particularly good match as the god of Yule (or Christmas time, hence the Yule log), who is characterized by a fat man with a white beard, with red as his signature color, a home in the northernmost parts of the world, a flying chariot drawn by goats, and association with chimneys and fireplaces. He was also accompanied by elves.

Other theories associated Santa clearly with Satan the Devil, pointing out that St. Nick’s name is too closely associated with the devil’s common name “Old Nick” in British and American vernacular, and various forms of “Nick” in multiple languages. The lengthy article “Santa Claus: The Great Impostor” goes into great detail with additional information on the origins of Santa Claus.

The Christmas Tree

Evergreen trees have long been a part of religious traditions, but prior to the association of the pine or fir tree with Christmas, these uses have been almost exclusively pagan. For instance, the druids and others during the Middle Ages regarded holly and mistletoe as signs of eternal life, and used pine boughs to ward off evil spirits, ghosts, and witches. Ancient Egyptians worshiped evergreens, and evergreen branches were a part of the Roman Saturnalia festival and Norse traditions surrounding Balder, god of the sun. Various pagan religions including Greek, Roman, Norse, and Celtic groups, were known to decorate evergreen trees during festivals to certain gods, and to give evergreen boughs to others as a symbol of luck.

How the Christmas tree became part of Christian tradition is debated, but two popular explanations involve St. Boniface and Martin Luther. Boniface is reported to have cut down an oak tree during a druid ritual, and a small evergreen tree sprung up from its stump and became a symbol of Christianity. Martin Luther allegedly cut down a fir tree, brought it into his home, and decorated it with small candles, starting the tradition. In Germany, the tradition dates back to the 16th century, when trees were cut down, brought inside, and decorated with fruit to represent the Tree of Paradise during the celebration of Adam and Eve on December 24.

Christmas trees were long resisted as being pagan, but beginning in the mid-1800s gained fairly broad acceptance in America and worldwide.

Gift Giving

Exchanging gifts was a major part of the Roman Saturnalia festival, and continued after it was converted into Christmas. Justification for maintaining the practice of annual gift giving at Christmastime, despite the Bible’s frequent admonishments against materialism, comes from the gifts the Magi brought to the baby Jesus (Matthew 2:10-11). In contrast, the Magi’s gifts were for Jesus and to honor god, but today’s holiday gift giving focuses on gifts to friends and family, which is the type of gift giving practiced during Saturnalia.

Bringing it All Together

Although Christmas is regarded as a Christian holiday, exploring its origins makes it clear that Christmas has little if anything to do with Christianity. It is supposed to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, but does so on a date unrelated to his birth, which he never commanded be celebrated or celebrated during his lifetime (nor did his disciples), and incorporates thousands of years of pagan traditions. The holiday focuses on and encourages human traditions, not religious practices, and promotes consumerism through its practice of excessive gift giving. Further, Christmas’ central symbol, Santa Claus, whose existence and yearly nocturnal visits are a lie, is closely aligned with pagan gods.

The Bible teaches that God should be worshiped in spirit and truth (John 4:23,24), not through man’s traditions and falsehoods. There is no record in the Bible of Christmas celebrations, including annual observance of Jesus’ birth, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, or ritualistic exchange of presents. Further, the Bible teaches that we should worship and pray to God alone for what we need and want, not to a beneficent holiday gift giver who rewards the nice and overlooks the naughty. In Matthew 4:10, Jesus chastises Satan for offering all of the kingdoms of the world in exchange for a single act of worship, saying, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.”

Whether you are a devout Christian or someone who regards Christmas as a nonreligious tradition, the origins of the holiday and what its practice really means should play an important role in the decision-making process as to whether you should celebrate it. Mark 7:7-8 says that it’s in vain when people worship God with the teachings of men as their doctrine and neglect the commandment of God.

These traditions are no longer a part of my life, now that I know where they come from. Should they be part of yours?

Contents Copyright © 2008 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — Summer from Wired for Noise has an awesome post up today about why she chooses to raise her children without religion. An excerpt:

Even though I’m not an atheist myself I’m drawn in by atheist parenting blogs. In a way I almost respect them more than those of parents actively teaching their kids their religion. There is something braver, more sure, and far more logical in letting your kids find their own answers than to hand them a book and tell them all the answers are in there.

…It’s hard for the logical part of my brain to wrap around my own faith, or anyone else’s faith for that matter. I have my reasons for my beliefs, and while they often make no sense to even myself, they are mine and mine alone. And because they are mine, I won’t be passing them on to my kids. I share what my belief is, the basics of it, but the deeper stuff is left out. It’s their’s to find, if they want to. And if they choose to walk away, well so be it.

To summarize it would be to do a disservice, so I really encourage you to read it in its entirety, along with the comment trail (where you’ll find my response, #10, to Summer’s post).

Do you believe children need to be taught religious beliefs and values, or should learn them on their own, as they go? Leave a comment.

Contents Copyright © 2008 Kristen King

Like this post?

(www.sass-pants.com) — On Thursday morning, my mom sent me a text message:

Why can’t you celebrate thanksgiving if when the Bible was written it hadn’t happened yet and we’re giving thanks to God?

It’s a logical question since I stopped celebrating holidays mainly for religious reasons. God = religion, right? Except, there’s more to it than that.

Widely regarded as an all-American holiday, Thanksgiving Day is commonly believed to commemorate the Pilgrims’ survival of a hard winter and successful harvest early after their arrival in America. But is there more to this holiday tradition? I say yes.

Harvest festivals date back thousands of years, and were traditionally a time to give expressions of gratitude and sacrifices to various gods in appreciation of a bountiful growing season. Fall Equinox, which generally falls around September 21 or 22 in America, is a popular time for harvest festivals and has been associated with celebrations in cultures around the world including druids, Mayans, Native Americans and others, and included ceremonial activities such as fertility rituals and burnt offerings.

Obviously today the Thanksgiving celebration doesn’t have a direct correlation with a single pagan ritual, but it evokes many of these traditions. For instance, the Thanksgiving cornucopia started as a hollowed goat’s horn filled with fruits, vegetables, and grains. This practice is rooted in Greek mythology, a legend in which goat Amalthea broke off one of her horns and offered it to king of the gods, Zeus, as a sign of reverence.

The Roman celebration Cerelia, honoring the goddess Ceres, goddess of corn, occurred annually on October 4 and included a thanksgiving feast. Romans also had a annual day of thanksgiving each December. The autumn celebration of Thesmosphoria honored the Greek goddess Demeter, goddess of grains, and also included a feast. Native American tradition recognized a variety of fall harvest festivals associated with the moon cycle and including feasting days as well.

Although modern-day Thanksgiving celebrations may not directly deal with pagan traditions, pagan origins are clear in Thanksgiving practices, which may be cause for concern for folks, like me, who feel that believers cannot drink from the cup of demons and the cup of God at the same time (see 1 Corinthians 10:20-22) and that true and false worship can have no common ground (see 2 Corinthians 6:15, 16).

For those who are nonreligious, or who view Thanksgiving as only a family tradition rather than a real holiday, there is still cause for concern, in my opinion, in the excess that Thanksgiving has come to encourage. In most Thanksgiving celebrations, the focus is on food — more of it than any household needs — football, and the upcoming shopping season rather than on gratitude. In my eyes, that’s hypocrisy, an excuse for a party, not a sincere display of unselfish gratitude to a higher power.

Do I like eating turkey, stuffing, cranberry sauce, and sweet potatoes? You betcha. They’re delicious. Do I like time off from work? Heck yeah. Do I (and my bank account) enjoy big sales? Um, duh, yes. And do I try to show my gratitude to God every day? Yes, I do. But having warm and fuzzy feelings about poultry dishes, sleeping in, liking big discounts, and thinking it’s important to show gratitude to my Creator still don’t mean I’m going to be participating in the Thanksgiving holiday, but thanks for asking. Repeatedly. Every year. And not just my mom, for the record.

There are lots of things now that weren’t around when the Bible was written (Internet porn, anyone?) but the principles it contains and the instructions it offers are still relevant, and I would argue that they’re vital. The Bible is clear on how we should worship: in spirit and truth (see John 4:24). And I don’t think Thanksgiving is truly about being thankful to God at all, which is why I don’t celebrate it.

Still have questions? Leave a comment. I promise to be nice. Unless you’re a jerk, in which case I reserve the right to mock you politely.

Contents Copyright © 2008 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — How’s this for offensive? “Jesus Is My Prozac”

I was test driving my husband’s new truck when I saw that absurd statement on a sign in front of a church in Fredericksburg, VA, and I nearly ran off the road I was so aghast that anyone could possibly be so ignorant as to suggest that depression can be cured by a healthy dose of religion.

Depression is a medical illness, not a figment of your imagination, and being “a good enough Christian” is not the cure. Are you suggesting that I suffer from depression because I’m a big fat sinner? Perhaps because I don’t believe in Jaaaaayyyyyyzus sufficiently for miraculous intervention in my brain chemistry? Gee, that makes me feel SO much better. Give me a break.

Of COURSE if you’re feeling lonely and disconnected, finding a home in a supportive community with shared values and goals, religious or otherwise, can help you feel more grounded. If you feel like you lack direction, identifying yourself as a child of God or a member of whatever church or however you choose to see it can certainly give you a sense of purpose or meaning. Belief in a higher power can also provide encouragement and reassurance. But that is NOT the same thing as curing depression. It’s not. It’s not, and I resent the implication that it is. You know, as if that weren’t clear.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health,

An estimated 26.2 percent of Americans ages 18 and older — about one in four adults — suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in a given year. When applied to the 2004 U.S. Census residential population estimate for ages 18 and older, this figure translates to 57.7 million people.

Of the 57.7 million Americans suffering from a mental disorder, nearly 15 million suffer from depression according to 1999 NIMH statistics. No doubt the number has increased since then. And when I say depression, I’m not talking about feeling bummed. I’m talking about clinical depression, persistent and pervasive feelings of sadness, anxiety, emptiness, hopelessness, and guilt coupled with a lack of interest or pleasure in things you previous enjoyed, possible sleep disruption, possible panic disorder, possible loss of appetite, and all of the numerous other manifestations of depression. I’m talking about a disease.

Would you tell someone who’s allergic to bee stings and is going into anaphylactic shock that Jesus is her EpiPen? Or suggest to a diabetic whose blood glucose level is through the roof that Jesus is her insulin? Saying, “Jesus is my Prozac” is just as inappropriate, just as disrespectful, just as STUPID, and possibly even more damaging — because there’s nothing like telling a depressed person that their depression is their own fault because they lack faith to make them feel better at the end of the day.

Way to be supportive, Christendom. Good job.

You can learn more about causes, symptoms, and treatment of depression through the 25-page PDF Depression, published by NIMH or by reading NIMH’s brief depression fact sheet.

Contents Copyright © 2008 Kristen King
Image Copyright © 2006 Cracker&Boyo | Used With Permission

(www.sass-pants.com) — This is always an interesting time of year for me because I don’t celebrate holidays. I’m not going to get into my religious reasons for it right now (though we can talk about that later if you want), but I feel a need to assert, if only to hear myself say it, that not doing Halloween, Christmas, or any other holiday does not make me a total freak.

In fact, maybe it’s time to think about what you’re actually doing. Like Halloween, for instance. You’re hanging what’s supposed to represent dead bodies from the trees in your front yard, decorating your home with fake cobwebs and fake blood and who knows what else, and then dressing up your children in bizarre and often disgusting and age-inappropriate costumes before encouraging them to take candy from strangers. Yeah, that makes sense. Way to be consistent. And SANE, for that matter.

And Christmas? You’re killing a tree only to drag it into your house and make it look NOT like a tree by draping hideous, shiny, blinking things all over it — which are all fire hazards, btw — and killing yourself to buy crap for people you care about (or at least people whom you think are going to buy crap for you), including your children, to whom you are blatantly lying about the existence of a creepy fat man who watches them at all times and routinely breaks into your home.

Do we really think these things are NORMAL? Seriously? Just because they’re commonly accepted doesn’t mean they’re not nuts. So if I choose to treat October 31 or December 25 as just another day, please don’t give me a hard time about it, tell me I’m no fun, or try to talk me into doing loony things with you so you feel less crazy.

Contents Copyright © 2008 Kristen King