Overheard last night at Café do Brasil’s rooftop patio:

“I listen to Christian radio and Christian TV all day, and they told me – God told me – that Communist China is going to invade us in October. You know the only place we’ll be safe? Out in the hills. We need to get to the hills. There was even a movie about this – have you seen The Hunt for Red October? It was all about this. You can tell, just from the title. It’s right there, in the title. “Red October.” Communist China is going to invade this country. God told me.”

This, from a nicely-dressed, otherwise unremarkable middle-aged woman, sitting alone with a caipirinha and a pack of cigarettes. She’d been talking to the guitar player between songs,  uttering the occasional strange remark, but nothing quite so strange as this.

As she made her dire predictions, a silence fell over the rest of the patio. A couple people giggled, but most of us sat in stunned silence.

Then, from another table, a query to the guitar player: “Do you know any Jack Johnson or Ben Harper?”

And things were back to normal.

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. –Ephesians 5:22-24

I’m pretty sure that I’ve written before about the religious idea of “complementarianism” (wives should be submissive to their husbands; husbands should lead and protect their wives). Obviously, I take issue with the idea for a number of reasons. One of those reasons is that this kind of ideal can sometimes have the unintended consequence of implicitly condoning domestic violence. Take, for instance, this account of Sheri Ferber, a former member of Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church:

Four years ago, [Ferber] approached a Saddleback pastor for protection against her husband, who’d violently attacked her while they were driving home from church. Instead of protecting her, Ferber says, the pastor called her husband to warn him that Ferber had been “gossiping about their marriage.” Ferber, it seems, had run into Saddleback’s teaching that the sanctity of marriage prohibits divorce in all but a few circumstances, and domestic violence is not one of them. Abused wives could separate from their husbands, Teaching Pastor Tom Holladay explained in audio clips once available on the church website, but only with the intent to reconcile through church counseling.

“There’s something in me that wishes there was a Bible verse that says if they abuse you in this and such kind of way then you can leave them,” said Holladay, but sadly, he concluded, there wasn’t. “It’s not like you can escape the pain,” he said, since the “short-term solution” of divorce leaves the “long-term pain” of a failed marriage. Holladay further qualified that domestic abuse meant regular beatings, not simply a spouse who “grabbed you once.”

Of course, as with probably every passage of the bible, it’s all about the interpretation. And I’m not suggesting that complementarianism necessarily encourages non-abusive men to become abusive. As one author quoted in the Ferber story says:

Jocelyn Andersen, author of Woman Submit! Christians and Domestic Violence, was severely battered by her assistant pastor husband. She argues that submission teachings don’t create abusers, but allow violent men to justify their abuse as biblical. The real danger, though, is in how the teachings impact devout women, who may conclude they can’t leave their marriages and remain committed Christians.

The thought that there may be churches out there that are encouraging women to stay in abusive situations, because to divorce would be somehow worse (you’d be replacing the pain of abuse with the “pain of a failed marriage”), makes me sick. The thought that there are women blaming themselves for the abuse, and that some church members are suggesting to them that if they were simply better wives – more submissive, sweeter, sexier, whatever – then the abuse would stop, makes me even sicker.

However, there is almost always a way to muck up what seems to be a black-and-white situation, and today’s muck-up factor is this: there is actually some evidence that complementarianism makes some people happier in their marriages:

In general, women in traditional Evangelical marriages report greater levels of satisfaction with their husbands’ emotional engagement and domestic help than do more progressive working women, according to W. Bradford Wilcox, a University of Virginia sociologist and author of Soft Patriarchs and New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers and Husbands. Men in these marriages, says Wilcox, are less likely than other men to become abusive. But this is only true if they are regular churchgoers. “Born again” men who attend church sporadically are actually among the most likely abusers, just as they are the most likely to be divorced, or not living with their children. For these less committed churchgoers, teaching the same lessons about gender roles and the importance of saving marriages at almost any cost can have dangerous consequences.

This doesn’t define what is meant by “traditional Evangelical marriage,” but I assume that in the context of the article, that definition includes some incarnation of complementarianism. And it raises a few questions that I find really interesting, and would like to see further research on.

For one thing, why are “born again” men who attend church sporadically more likely to be abusers than are regular churchgoers? The reason might seem obvious at first (regular churchgoers are more likely to be devoutly religious), but I wonder if there are other factors. It seems like a lot of it might depend on the individual characteristics of both the man and the church. Could those men more inclined to be abusers be drawn to those churches that preach a more stringently fundamentalist version of complementarianism? Could it have more to do with the version of complementarianism being taught by the church (and subscribed to by the man) than with the actual frequency of church attendance?

I’d also like to know how the domestic violence rates of “born again” men (whether regular or sporadic churchgoers) compare with men who are either of a different faith (non-evangelical Christian, Jewish, Muslim), or of no faith at all. That would be a fascinating line of research, and I will be perusing a few academic journals to see if anything like that exists. (This is one reason I love being a student – free online access to OU library databases!)

I’d like to think that I’ve worked through a lot of my anger towards religion, and arrived at a slightly more nuanced view. While I still don’t believe in a god, I’m having a harder time being angry at those who do. To be honest, I don’t really care that much anymore. My position is that if people are happy believing in a god, good for them. And if two people are happy in one of these traditional, complementarian marriages (assuming they’re kind and respectful to one another), more power to them.

Just because it’s not for me doesn’t mean it’s not for anyone.

However, I remain sickened by any attempt to use religion to justify oppression of, or violence towards, others. I also remain sickened by any ideology that would hold the well-being of women in lower regard than it holds the well-being of men.

I’m not at all a fan of people who comment on what other people are eating – unless it’s in a “that looks so good” kind of way. However, the following anecdote amuses me – and, I think, serves as a powerful argument for subtlety:

There’s something amusing and heartening about watching a young woman with “VEGAN FOR LIFE!” tattooed in fancy  Spencerian script two inches high across the yoke of her shoulders, tearing in to the biggest, juiciest, RAREST hamburger I have ever seen.

No, it wasn’t a veggie burger, either.  Our caf doesn’t even serve them.  It was 100% beef, baby.

Before getting my most recent tattoo, I spent a great deal of time considering various symbols that would represent my atheism. The scarlet “A” was a top contender for awhile. However, I finally settled on a somewhat quieter statement, an atom (which, incidentally, is the symbol for American Atheists – I just omitted the little “A” in the nucleus).

The reasons for my decision were numerous. My little atom also served as a shout-out to science, of which I’m a big fan. And whereas confrontation is fine and dandy in the proper forums, I didn’t particularly want the back of my neck to be a standing invitation to a duel. Finally, tattoos are pretty much a lifelong commitment. While I certainly can’t see myself finding God all of a sudden, I’m pretty sure “Vegan For Life” Girl also never saw herself eating meat.

Then again, maybe her tattoo was meant ironically – in which case, that’s pretty fucking hilarious.

(via Dustbury)

I was distracted yesterday by such compelling subjects as earthquakes, outdoor running, and gardening mishaps – and failed to post a recap of Friday night’s Richard Dawkins lecture at OU. However, instead of crafting my own post, I’m opting for the lazy way out and referring you to ERV’s recap of the event, instead. It’s most thorough, and rather funny.

Just a few brief observations of my own:

Dawkins’s accent is simply adorable. Adorable. I admit to swooning, for just a moment. I could’ve listened to him all night.

Re: Crazy Guy. Although I was initially amused by the drama up in the nosebleed section, my mirth quickly turned to fear as he made his crazy, screamin’ and hollerin’ way down the stairs towards those of us on the floor. I was cringing a little, waiting for bullets to ring out – I never noticed that the guy had something duct taped to him. (How did he get past security, again?)

If you’re so inclined, a You Tube video of the incident can be found here.

The best part of the whole thing, though, was having the rare opportunity to spend the evening with so many (presumably) likeminded Oklahomans. I’m not used to feeling such a sense of peace and community. I just looked around at everyone with their copies of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, and their science-y t-shirts, and smiled.

Alas, I was unable to get a Richard Dawkins autograph. Although I’d brought my book, it was getting late when the post-lecture Q&A session finally ended, and I was hungry, thirsty and had to pee. I eyed what was already an intimidatingly long book signing line and decided against joining it.

Instead, Dwight and I headed to Blu for drinks, a late dinner, and good conversation. Seated next to us at the bar were a couple of girls. One had a copy of The God Delusion in front of her.

Yep – for one night, Oklahoma didn’t feel like Oklahoma.

Here in my own little corner of the world, I’ve been pleasantly out of the “Culture War” loop lately. I’ve been so heavily consumed by school and work and getting ready for my 5K run next week, that most of the daily onslaught of stupidity and annoyance has failed to register. I’ve found myself simply accepting as a matter of fact that several of our state legislators are perpetual embarrassment machines, churning out one humiliation after another. And the whole religion thing? Haven’t had much time to really care. I’ll let other people fight that fight.

It’s been nice. Really nice. And I hope to return to that state of relative obliviousness fairly soon. It’s just not going to be today. Here’s why.

Look what landed in my inbox this morning – it’s HR 1015, in all of its gleaming, embarrassing glory: 

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma is a publicly funded institution which should be open to all ideas and should train students in all disciplines of study and research and to use independent thinking and free inquiry; and

THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the President of the University of Oklahoma, the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at the University of Oklahoma, and the Chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Oklahoma.

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma has planned a year-long celebration of the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin and the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s theory of evolution, called the “Darwin 2009 Project”, which includes a series of lectures, public speakers, and a course on the history of evolution; and

WHEREAS, the University of Oklahoma, as a part of the Darwin 2009 Project, has invited as a public speaker on campus, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published opinions, as represented in his 2006 book “The God Delusion”, and public statements on the theory of evolution demonstrate an intolerance for cultural diversity and diversity of thinking and are views that are not shared and are not representative of the thinking of a majority of the citizens of Oklahoma; and

WHEREAS, the invitation for Richard Dawkins to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma on Friday, March 6, 2009, will only serve to present a biased philosophy on the theory of evolution to the exclusion of all other divergent considerations rather than teaching a scientific concept.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

Oh, Rep. Thomsen (R-Ada), how proud you must be of such a fine resolution, one that urges an openness to all ideas, as long as they’re ideas you agree with. I doff my cap to you, good sir, as you claim your rightful place alongside the likes of Sally Kern, Randy Terrill and Randy Brogden as a Harbinger of Okie Shame.

As for tonight’s “controversial” Dawkins event, I’d already been super-psyched about going. I’ve been planning on getting there early, in hopes of scoring a good seat. And since there’s a book signing after the lecture, I’m hoping to get him to sign my copy of The God Delusion – or maybe even my boob.

Just kidding. Sort of.

Anyway, after reading this stupid Resolution, I’m even more excited about tonight. It’ll be a needed reminder that not everyone in this state is a total Science Hater.