Just A Funny Sign

Hey.

I started school

Here's a funny sign:

OK, laterz.

Nature -1, Grotesque Displays of Worship - 0

Oh man, this is good.

Evidently, nature has a wicked awesome sense of humor.

MONROE, OH (FOX19) - An iconic and massive statue of Jesus in Monroe, OH was destroyed after being struck by lightning Monday night.

The six-story statue was a well-known landmark on Interstate 75 since 2004, and was called "King of Kings" by members of Solid Rock Church, where it stood.

The lightning strike set the statue ablaze just after 11 p.m., Monroe police dispatchers said.

The 62-foot tall and 40-foot wide statue weighing 16,000 pounds quickly became engulfed in flames after the lightning strike. Fire crews were on the scene for several hours to put out the fire, but no one was injured.

The statue, also nicknamed "Touchdown Jesus" because of the way its arms were outstretched, is made out of wood and Styrofoam. The statue also had a steel frame anchored in concrete and fiberglass. The steel frame was all that remained after the fire. According to 911 calls, the lightning struck the right hand of the statue.

The fire spread to the attic of an adjacent amphitheater, but no other buildings at the church were affected. Fire chief Mark Neu says the fire caused $700,000 in damage to the statue and amphitheater. Neu says he believes the church has insurance.

The statue was scheduled to undergo a new paint job this summer after suffering some wear and tear during the harsh winter.

The pastor of Solid Rock Church says the church does plan to rebuild the statue.

Well of course the pastor is going to rebuild, that statue probably brings in quite a few worshipers who like their church like they like their trucks - over-sized and obnoxious.

My suggestion to the church is to make the next statue a progression piece - have Jesus doing a sweet end zone dance.

Thanks for the heads up, Curio. =D

Gay Angels Disturb Priest

Yeah, I'm serious.

Priest wants church painting removed because ‘angels look gay’

A Catholic priest at a Dominican Republic resort town wants to destroy artwork in his parish because the painting shows angels with “a homosexual expression”. This confuses the faithful, he argues.The painting named "Allegory of the Virgin of Carmen," was concluded 12 years ago by Dominican artist Roberto Flores. The artwork adorns the interior of the church of “Our Lady of Carmen” in the mountain community of Jarabacoa, an agricultural and tourist center located in the Dominican Republic.

The priest Johnny Duran sparked the controversy surrounding the painting, after promoting the adoption by the Jarabacoa City Council of a resolution that revokes an earlier statement by the same council that designated the mural as municipal heritage.

Explaining his reason to revoke the previous decision and destroy the mural, the priest argues that the church congregation feels uncomfortable by the painting and that the mural does not inspire religious sentiments because the angels there depicted have a “diabolical, homosexual look” in their faces. Further, he contends that it is not clear whether the angels are male or female.

Obviously the picture I posted is not the painting from the church, unfortunately I couldn't find a picture of that painting. So I did a google image search for the term 'gay angel' and found quite a few that looked similar to the one above. To me, that's not a gay angel, that's a stereotypical hunky male angel. I guess I understand how someone might 'look gay' if they're inundated with homosexual stereotypes, but somehow I don't think that a classical painting in a church has angels with rainbow accessories who are snappy dressers with great taste in art or whatever homosexual stereotype you want to imagine.

Look, you can't look at someone and know for a fact that they're gay. A painting is even more ambiguous because art is 100% subjective. What someone sees in art says far more about them than it says about the art itself. So, if the priest looks at a painting and sees a gay angel staring at him, I don't think the real issue will be dealt with by removing the art.

Tea Bagger Dares Local Pastors to Endorse Him From the Pulpit

Some Tea Bagger in South Dakota has decided to double dog dare via a press release pastors across the state to use their position of influence to endorse him for political office, an action which would rightfully jeopardize any participating church's tax exempt status since they would not be playing by the rules of the establishment clause which gives them tax exempt status in the first place.

Shockingly, one pastor of a Baptist (no so shocking) church took him up on the challenge.

One Rapid City pastor has accepted gubernatorial candidate Gordon Howie's challenge to defy federal tax law and endorsed Howie from the pulpit.

However, other local religious leaders have dismissed Howie's Pulpit Challenge initiative as legally and pastorally irresponsible.

On May 15, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, officially endorsed state Sen. Gordon Howie in his bid for governor during a church service.

Williams did not return a message last week when called by the Journal, but few here expect that his church will face repercussions from the Internal Revenue Service as a result of his sermon. Federal tax code prohibits all tax-exempt organizations, including charities and churches, from endorsing any candidate for public office.

It also forbids those organizations from making donations to or fundraising for a candidate and from "becoming involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate." Those restrictions on political activity for charitable organizations stem from a 1954 amendment to the tax code that historians attribute to then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson's desire to punish certain tax-exempt organizations (not churches) that supported his opponent in the 1954 Texas primary.

Federal courts have upheld those tax-exempt conditions about political activity, most recently in 2000. But the Alliance Defense Fund, which promotes Christian values in the political sphere, encourages pastors such as Williams to openly challenge the IRS and risk their tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) organization, in hopes that it might lead to a legal challenge and a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Johnson amendment.

It would seem that the current opinion is that it's OK for these institutions to break the law because 'no one is really going to do anything anyway.' Hopefully these churches will continue to push the envelope, to the point where the Christian privilege is forced into the mainstream and we as a nation are similarly forced to deal with it.

It would be disingenuous to insinuate that this moronic Baptist pastor is indicative of the general opinion of the religious leaders in the area, however. Though that seems to be exactly what Howie himself is trying to do.

Howie said Wednesday that his Pulpit Challenge was "getting great response from pastors across the state.

Not from the Rev. Jeff Otterman, pastor of St. James Lutheran Church in Belle Fourche, however. He called Howie's Pulpit Challenge irresponsible and insulting to his congregation.

"The people at St. James are very well-read, and they don't need their pastor telling them how to vote, or who to vote for," Otterman said. "To back one candidate over another seems far-reaching and could alienate a congregation rather than create opportunity for growth."

At Synagogue of the Hills, vice president Wayne Gilbert said its congregants hold divergent political opinions but all agree not to jeopardize the synagogue's tax-exempt status over political activity.

"I don't think any responsible leader of a tax-exempt religious group would be willing to risk tax-exempt status to endorse a candidate," Gilbert said.

Gilbert said the idea "that I should be instructed by a religious leader as to which candidate has the moral or religious high ground is personally insulting to me. I expect religious leaders to offer me insight and guidance into spiritual and moral matters, not secular and political ones."

Craig disagreed, saying pastors have a responsibility to educate their flock on God's laws, including which elected officials do the best job of following those laws. Pastors who don't are "not doing their jobs."

The Rev. Susan Huffman at First Congregational Church in Rapid City believes strongly in the separation of church and state, as did her religious ancestors, the Pilgrims.

"We recall that history and know the many problems that develop when politics and religion become entwined. We encourage our members to vote, but we won't tell them how to vote. We encourage our members to think, but we don't tell them what to think. We don't believe that one political party has a monopoly on the truth."

Even Howie's own pastor, Bishop Lorenzo Kelly at Faith Temple Church in Rapid City, said he has no plans to endorse his friend from the pulpit. "I have encouraged our people to be participants in the political arena and showed them the scriptures that back it up," Kelly said. "But I have not from the pulpit endorsed him. I wouldn't do that. I wouldn't put my church in jeopardy of anything."

It's nice to see that at least some of the religious leaders in the area don't feel it's their job to tell their congregations what to think outside of religion.

I'm very interested to see what comes of this. Like I said, the more churches that do this, the more obvious the Christian privilege becomes and we can all finally address it out in the open. Or, the churches that participate in political endorsements will lose their tax exempt status and very quickly churches will stop playing around in the political arena.

Ministers To Obama: Find A Church...Think of the Children!

It seems a couple of pearl clutching ministers have felt compelled to voice concern over The Obama family's personal choices regarding religion:

In Minneapolis for the Religion Newswriters Association annual conference, I asked two members of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships about the ongoing question of the first family finding a local church. It's about the children, is basically what both the Rev. Peg Chemberlin, president-elect of the National Council of Churches, and the former Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page answered.

"How will the children have a sense of Christian community?'' asked Chemberlin. "That's the pastoral question that's in my heart and I don't know the answer.'' Though she has "no criticism about the decision that they've made,'' she said the question still tugs at her." "How is the family going to get what they need, including the kids? How do they have a sense of Christian community, which for many of us is the formative place?''

This woman talks about Christian community as if Christians have a special kind of social structure that can't be found anywhere else but church. That may be true in regard to indoctrination, but otherwise anything you get from socializing at church you can attain by alternative means. Volunteering at a food bank or pet shelter, participating in community sports, even going to a park on any given day will expose your child to the same kind of community you find at church. Christians do not have any kind of monopoly on social interaction beyond proselytizing their own specific beliefs. It ends there.

If this woman has "no criticisms about the decision that they've made" then why is this being put forth as an issue of concern? This claim seems disingenuous to me - I'm not criticizing, I'm concerned. So are we to believe that your concern is because of something that you...agree with? Are comfortable with? Concern typically arises from actions which are perceived as negative in some way. By making a statement like this, You might be skirting around the edge of criticism, but that's only in regard to semantics. You're criticizing. It's OK, you have the freedom to do so. Just please be honest about it and stop trying to act as though you're not.

Page was equally concerned. "I do encourage our president to find a church for he and his family to attend,'' he said. "And while I deeply appreciate the fact that he does read the daily devotional that Joshua DuBois (director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships) sends to him - I appreciate that very much - those girls need a church. They need to be under instruction and tutelage of some godly people.''

Page said it was encouraging that Obama is currently hearing preaching from a Southern Baptist chaplain when he visits Camp David but he doesn't think that's sufficient. "He needs to be faithful on a regular basis, not just when he's on vacation at Camp David so it would help if that were a more consistent and more a part of his life," said Page. "I think it would be a grounding influence for him and an encouragement to the faith community."

The only person who knows President Obama's spiritual needs is President Obama. Perhaps it benefits the image of religion to have the president be faithful on a regular basis, but that has nothing to do with concern for Obama's immortal soul, that has everything to do with religion trying to remain as relevant and powerful as it was in the last administration in this current administration.

Personally, I respect Obama for seeking out what spirituality he personally requires and dedicating the rest of his time to, you know, running the country.

Coach Baptizes 16 - 17 Year Old Players Without Parent's Permission

LOUISVILLE — A mother is angry about a trip led by the head football coach at Breckinridge County High School took about 20 players on a school bus late last month to his church, where nearly half of them — including her son — were baptized.

Michelle Ammons said her 16-year-old son was baptized without her knowledge and consent, and she is upset that a public school bus was used to take players to a church service — and that the school district's superintendent was there and did not object.

"Nobody should push their faith on anybody else," said Ammons, whose son, Robert Coffey, said coach Scott Mooney told him and other players that the Aug. 26 outing would include only a motivational speaker and a free steak dinner.

"He said it would bring the team together," Robert, a sophomore, said in an interview.

Two other parents, however, said in interviews that their sons told them that Mooney had said the voluntary outing to Franklin Crossroads Baptist Church in Hardin County would include a revival.

Mooney, contacted by phone, said school district officials instructed him not to comment.

But Superintendent Janet Meeks, who is a member of the church and witnessed the baptisms, said she thinks the trip was proper because attendance was not required, and another coach paid for the gas.

Meeks said parents weren't given permission slips to sign but knew the event would include a church service, if not specifically a baptism. She said eight or nine players came forward and were baptized.

"None of the players were rewarded for going and none were punished for not going," Meeks said.

David Friedman, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said in an interview that the trip would appear to violate Supreme Court edicts on the separation of church and state — even if it was voluntary and the school district didn't pay for the fuel.

"If players want to attend the coach's church and get baptized, that's great," Friedman said. But a coach cannot solicit player attendance at school, he said, noting, "Coaches have great power and persuasion by virtue of their position, and they have to stay neutral."

However, Matt Staver, founder and general counsel for Liberty Counsel, an Orlando-based group that provides free legal assistance in religious liberty cases, said there was nothing wrong with trip as long as it was voluntary and no public funds were used. He compared it to a coach inviting players to attend a play or to go see a baseball game.

Neither the ACLU nor Liberty Counsel is involved in the Breckinridge County case.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in school prayer cases that "at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

In March, the court rejected an appeal from a high school football coach in New Jersey who wanted to bow his head and kneel during prayers led by his players, despite a school district policy prohibiting it.

Meeks said she would have sought the consent of parents for the baptism of students if they had been "7 or 8 or 9" years old. But she didn't think it was necessary for the players who are "16 or 17."

She said that if Robert's parents didn't know that the outing was going to include a revival service it was because "he apparently was not forthcoming with his parents."

The church's pastor, the Rev. Ron Davis, said that he requires minors to obtain their parents' consent to be baptized, but he added: "Sometimes 16-year-olds look like 18 years. We did the best we could."

He said the event on Aug. 26 "was a great service" and that attendance by the players was strictly voluntary.

"I trust the coach 100%," he said of Mooney. "He is a fine young man and he is sure not going to manipulate anyone."

Two parents, Tim Bruington and Eric Vertress, said in interviews that they knew through their children that the trip would include a revival-type service.

Bruington said his son, Tyler, a senior, decided not to go. Vertress said his son, Matthew, elected to attend and that his mother drove to the church separately for the service.

Ammons, who lives in Big Spring, said that she is a Baptist but her husband, Danny, is Catholic, and that both feel like their son should wait until he is 18 to make important decisions on religion.

"We felt he was brainwashed," she said.

She said she was prepared to drop the matter until she found out that Meeks attended the service. She said she consulted a lawyer in Elizabethtown but hasn't decided what action she will take.

"They have no right to take my son on a school bus across county lines to be a church to be baptized," she said.

While 16 years old is, in my opinion, old enough to start looking into religions and making decisions for themselves, having a football coach ask one of his or her players to go to church while at school and then using state property to get to the church, regardless of who bought the gas for the trip, is a clear violation of the establishment clause. That coach was promoting a specific religion to his players and he was doing so on government property while in a position of influence over minors. This is ridiculous that anyone involved would even feign surprise that parents might be upset. While I am of the opinion that a 16 year old is old enough to make their own religious decisions, I don't consider a coach's influence in attending this kind of event an example of a kid making up their own mind about anything. Also, I might be ok with Tristan going to something like this when he's 16 but that doesn't mean everyone should be ok with their 16 year olds attending which is why asking permission is expected. It's not a matter of 'it was voluntary so the school didn't have to' it's a matter of respect.

The Maria Bamford Show - Faith

Thanks for the link, Mike.

Wal-Mart Sized Mega Churches Met With Protest

A problem some smaller communities are having is a recent insurgence of mega-churches, mosques and synagogues. These structures are huge, have an impact on the wildlife, water supplies, and landscape, and often inspire reflexive feelings of discomfort among townspeople who are accustomed to their small corner churches with tastefully understated steeples and manageable crowds on Sunday who have no problem fitting into the parking lot.

One such struggle between God's house and the public can be found in Global Mission Church in Silver Spring, Maryland:

Global Mission Church, a predominantly Korean-American congregation in Silver Spring with nearly 2,000 members, has purchased the 120-acre site straddling Frederick and Montgomery counties at the base of Sugarloaf Mountain. The three-story, 138,000-square-foot building would include a sanctuary for 1,160. Senior Pastor Dennis M. Kim - no relation to Manbae - says the Baptist church is simply following its membership, which clustered around Washington when it began 35 years ago, but has since migrated into Gaithersburg, Germantown and Frederick.

The staff of the Frederick County Planning Commission has recommended the site plan be approved. But after area residents raised objections at a commission hearing in July, the church attempted to ingratiate itself with the community at the open house last week at the Frederick Holiday Inn. Members laid on a spread of hors d'oeuvres while a string quartet from the Global Mission Church played. Architects, engineers and landscapers staffed information tables to respond to questions about the building project.

Among the 100 or so neighbors who crowded the room, there were many. Meg Menke of nearby Barnesville expressed concern about the church's carbon footprint. If 1,200 people travel three to a car 20 miles each way for services, she said, "we're talking 16,000 miles, whether they come all at once or not.

"In this day and age, we like to think of ourselves as being a little more enlightened about global stewardship and climate change," said Menke, who chairs the Barnesville Planning Commission. "I understand there hasn't been discussion about green architecture, geothermal energy and photoelectric. Where are energy sources coming from?"

This is a really good question. I would have not thought about this line of concern to be honest since my initial reaction to any mega-church construction plan is a reflexive 'ew, no.' I think that I would be far less opposed to these behemoth structures if they did focus and dedicate their building plans to being as green as possible. The funds that go into paying for these structures are 100% donated and the church itself doesn't pay taxes. I think a wonderful way to give back to a community which you don't give back to monetarily would be to act as a kind of guinea pig for new 'green' architecture and structural projects. There are plenty of government subsidies to be had by using these 'green'

Others said the church would jam up area roads and drain the area aquifer. Christine Kefauver said her family had lived around Sugarloaf Mountain for generations, and recounted past efforts to limit the surrounding development.

"When we see that church," she said, "it reminds me of driving down to [Interstate] 495 and seeing the Mormon Temple."

Church officials say the comparison is unfair. They say a balloon test showed that trees would obscure the church's highest point - an 85-foot spire - from passing traffic. Manbae Kim said more urban sites were prohibitively expensive; Dennis Kim said regulations in Montgomery County were too restrictive.

I have to assume that this is a reference to a Mormon temple in the area which is imposing on the rest of the landscape because of its size and placement, but when I read it the first time it struck me as a kind of childish back and forth. "you guys would be like the Mormons!" "Take it back!"

"Churches are doing meaningful ministries in the community," the senior pastor said, and named efforts to counsel families, combat drugs and clean up communities. "With no churches in the community, we would lose many good things. That's why we must survive and we must continue to serve. That's our purpose. That's why we are here."

Ok, now I have a problem. Scare tactics don't sit well with me and it sounds an awful lot like this pastor is trying to imply that if the community doesn't bend over and allow these giant churches to be built, their kids will become drug addicts and the community will fall apart. The implication as I read it is that communities thrive and are healthy because of church, not because of the people who comprise the community and that is insulting to everyone in Silver Spring.

It seems like churches are pushing for more and more and when the public stands up and says now wait a minute...the pastors and churches have no problem pulling out the pearl clutching tactics which have served them so well up until now. I'm glad to see people from the community letting their voice be heard when they disagree with these giant structures being built in their towns - it shows that the influence and intimidation of the church is not without limit.

Tithe - A Divine Insurance Payment

I am so excited. At work today I found a tithe envelope! Now, I have explained at length on this blog about how I wasn't raised in a religious atmosphere, so there's a lot of things about religion that I know next to nothing about. When I found out that tithe was supposed to be 10% of your income I was truly flabbergasted. 10% toward an imaginary friend? Cheese-sauce, that seems a bit steep. Now that I've been to a few churches and I see the expensive cars a lot of pastors have and the nice tailored suits, I understand why (the word of god doesn't come cheap, evidently) but I still didn't understand why someone would actually fork over 10% of their income to a church as if that's what Jesus wanted. Didn't he bust up a church at some point, calling the leaders out for being crooks and telling people they didn't have to go to any specific place to worship? Yeah yeah, I know, I just don't 'get' it, whatever.

I found this tithe envelope for Seventh-day Adventists. The image on the front of the envelope is thoroughly christian, it's two hand overlapped holding with bloody nails out as if in offering. Hello, would you like these bloody nails? Why no thank you, sir. The writing on the front of the envelope says "Tithe Love Offerings" in pretty quasi-cursive font. I appreciate when being swindled out of my money to have it done via nice fonts. No Comic Sans BS, that's for sure.

On the inside flap of the envelope there is quite a bit of writing. First in bold and prominent lettering you see a truncated bible verse. It reads:

A tenth...is holy to God. Lev. 27:32

The actual bible verse reads:

And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. Lev. 27:32 (KJV)

Ok, so that adds up. The text under the heading is bit more clear and references another bible verse to back up their logic:

Tithe, the first 10% of our income, serves as evidence of our covenant relationship with God and our desire to place Him first in our lives (Matt 6:33). Tithe is used for the benefit of the ministry of the church and support of gospel workers.

To give this verse a bit of context, Matt 6:31-33 reads:

(6:31)Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(6:32)(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
(6:33)But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

So basically, they're referencing a part of the bible where people are being told not to worry about food or clothing - basic needs - as long as you believe in god, you'll be provided for. This pamphlet seems to indicate that belief in god is good, but you have to put your money where your mouth is and keep up with tithe. What if you need the tithe money to buy food and clothes for yourself?

It seems to me like tithe is the equivalent of an insurance payment. God is on your side, watching over you and caring for you as long as you believe in him with all your heart - and pay your bill. God takes 10% off the top. You know, like the mafia.

The envelope is not done! The envelope is asking if you can't afford just a little more. The next bold heading reads:

Responding to God's goodness. Ps. 116:12

Ps. 116:12 reads:

What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? Ps. 116:12 (KJV)

Wait, didn't I just give 10% of my paycheck to god? I'd say I already did my rendering. No, the envelope insists, you should give a bit more.

In response to God's blessings, He asks us to give an offering out of our heart as an extra measure of supporting church ministry in our community and around the world.

The percentage recommendation is: 4-7% for local church expenses; 2% for conference ministries - evangelism, Christain Education and Sunset Lake; and 2-3% for world missions such as television and radio ministry, disaster and famine relief, and higher education.

There are no biblical verses attached to justify this secondary request for funds. I have to wonder, if the additional 4-7% is for local church expenses, what the hell does the first 10% go to? In 2005 the average salary in the US was 31,410 and according to the website (see link) inflation hasn't affected that amount. 10% of 31,410 is 3,141. Divide that by 52 and you're supposed to give 60.40 to the church every Sunday? God is billing you three Jacksons a week for salvation insurance. 241.60 cents a month 'offering', even though offerings were no longer needed with the whole Jesus thing, but whatever. That seems like a lot to me. I know, I know, there is no price too high to pay for salvation, but has it ever occured to the religious people who go in for this scam that they might be getting one put over on them? It seems suspect, I guess that's my point.

They include a very handy and considerate recap of of all of the offerings requested - tithe and local church budget which includes evangelism and conference ministries including evangelism and world budget which...you get it. It looks pretty obviously similar to a bank deposit slip which strikes me as ballsy. This is a pull no punches request for cash.

On the back of the envelope there is a thank you in advance a bit about stewardship:

Stewardship is the personal acknowledgment on our part that God is owner and provider of all the basic goods of life - spiritual, physical and material. As Christians, we are called to be faithfully responsible with the resources entrusted to us by God. We are to manage God-given gifts of time, talents, money and the use of our spiritual strengths.

This entire paragraph is just a reminder that you've done nothing - the only thing that has brought you happiness or prosperity is your belief in god. This is the part where they remind you how comprehensive the God insurance that you're purchasing is. That's how it sounds to me. What's interesting is while a believer might find that kind of message to be uplifting and hopeful, I see it as entirely insulting and condescending. It's difficult for me not to see it as simple manipulation. Maybe I feel that way because they follow it up with this:

Planning for the Future. One practice of stewardship is arranging your estate plan and will. This allows biblical principles of stewardship to continue beyond your life. To talk with professionals and arrange your estate plan and other documents, call xxx.xxx.xxxx

Also...when you die we want your shit.

"Can I Take Your Son to Church?"

I was standing outside this morning and my son was playing with his transformer toys in the yard. As I stood there, dazed still from having just woken up, one of my neighbors walked up to me, all smiles and shiny cheeks. I said good morning in my polite but reserved way and she said good morning back but it was obvious she had meandered over to me with a purpose and I waited patently for that purpose to be revealed. The conversation we had was a bit shocking, but also a bit satisfying.

Neighbor Lady: How's it going?

Me: Oh, OK. I work nights so I'm just getting myself up now.

NL: Well it's nice that your son lets you sleep in.

M: Yeah, he's a good boy, I am lucky.

NL: I wanted to ask you about him, we're going to this thing tomorrow and I wanted to know if he could come?

M: Oh yeah, what kind of thing? What time? He's going to hang out with his grandmother sometime tomorrow so it might not work out.

NL: It's in the morning.

This is when I began to get uncomfortable. Tomorrow is Sunday. Sunday morning. She wants to take my son to a 'thing' on Sunday morning. I must have paused for a little too long or was wearing my concern plainly on my face because my neighbor continued -

NL: It's a church thing, but the kids don't really do a lot of the church stuff they just play. I thought he might like it.

M: Well what kind of church thing is it?

NL: Well, it's church. We go to a really nice church down the street and I have heard you and your boyfriend talking about being atheists, but I figure your son might still want to see what it's all about.

M: My 6 year old son?

NL: Well, yeah.

M: You're asking to take my 6 year old kid to a church, knowing that I'm an atheist?

NL: Well, I know you rejected god, but that doesn't mean your boy has to grow up without knowing all his options, right? I'm not trying to offend you...

It was at this point that I took a long pause. I told the neighbor, a very nice lady who I honestly feel wasn't trying to be insulting and who has genuine concerns regarding god, judgment, and hell, that I needed a minute to think about things. She seemed to misinterpret my pause as if I were considering for even a moment allowing my son to go with her but that was fine as she patiently waited while I considered my response.

M: You have the little blond girl, right? The nice girl my son plays with?

NL: Yeah, she's my daughter and she LOVES the church we go to.

M: I want you to consider something and I'm not trying to be mean, I'm trying to prove a point. Were I to come up to you and ask you if I could take your daughter with me and my son to an activity where all of the people there besides your daughter would be atheists 'just to give her another perspective', would you be comfortable with that?

NL: (immediately blurts out) Well of course not!

M: Well then you completely understand why I would rather not have my son go to church with you tomorrow. And for the record, I would never suggest that myself - not for my son or your daughter. Our kids are 6 - I feel like they need to figure out for themselves what they believe and right now, they're still taking in all the possible explanations.

NL: Well, if you want your son to make up his own mind, why would you be opposed to him coming to church with us and checking it out?

M: For one, I think he's too young. More important than that, he's not the one who asked me if he could go to church, you are. He's not yet interested in your faith and I'm not going to push the exposure on him. When he's ready, he'll look into it and if you guys are still living next to us, I'll let him know then that you'll be happy to take him to church with you.

This was the end of the conversation. I don't know if the interaction offended the woman or not, but it shouldn't have. I remember being a kid and being present during similar conversations between my parents and friends and neighbors of theirs. When I was in 5th grade my parents decided I was old enough to go to church with people if I wanted to and I remember going to a Carman concert with some neighbors of mine and feeling like I had stepped into the twilight zone.

The religious practice of 'get 'em while they're young' seems unsavory to me because it takes the minds of people just as willing to accept the existence of Santa Clause or Optimus Prime on faith as anything else, and produces for them a creator god who they are to take on faith is real as well. Then, they take away Santa and Optimus as fanciful, childish things, yet they maintain that god is the real deal? How can you willingly do that to a kid and not consider than you might be messing them up?