The hour badly spent

people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, you so missed the point, god is extra dead, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, we are not amused, shut up kansas, convulsive hand-wringing, too christianey, doucherie, reality has a well-known liberal bias, christholesDecember 1, 2008 2:55 pm

Weeks ago, the Collegian’s "You Suck" comic depicted Jesus (yeah, I know this is old; it took my uppers this long to kick in). In panel 2, an old lady asks "What did you really want from humanity?" In panel 2, a swarthy, bearded, long-haired toga-clad Jew replies "That’s easy — all I want is for people to get along. Love ach other and be happy…it’s pretty simple."

Jesus goes on, in panel 3, with "Oh — also, don’t f**k panda bears. I can not stress that enough. Love and happiness, and no panda f**king. That’s all I ever really wanted to get across to people."

Comic portrayals of Jesus are hardly a big deal, and this one is fairly basic and pretty tame, if you ask us. Ask a Christhole, however, and you get a different answer. Ben Balman, a K-State graduate, wrote a letter to the editor.

I am writing in regard to the comic “You Suck” printed in the Collegian on Nov. 13. I was extremely offended by this comic strip when I read the Collegian Thursday morning. I did not find it to be even remotely funny. On the contrary I found it quite obscene.

In fact, I believe it crossed the line to downright blasphemy. Not only did it incorporate vulgar language of the worst kind, which would not be printed in any upstanding newspaper, it defamed Jesus Christ. As someone who proudly professes Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I was outraged, and not only me, but I know for a fact that many of my friends were deeply offended as well.

I can take a joke, but at some point we must draw the line and I believe that this comic crossed that line - blatantly and unashamedly. I am disappointed and offended beyond words. I expect better discretion by the Collegian staff in the future as far as what is printed. There is so much humor that could be printed that would be far less edgy and controversial — why must we resort to material that is crass, crude and inconsiderate of the faith of the majority of Americans? Is this merely to get a reaction like the one I am now writing?

There are both more appropriate outlets for the brand of so-called “humor” exhibited in this latest comic strip, as well as more appropriate alternatives to print in a campus newspaper. Until this comic strip ceases to be so obscene or ceases to be printed, I will now be removing the entire outer fold of any Collegian I pick up, if I choose to read it at all.

Was Balman for real? Even if he did have a point, he undermined it by making himself look stupid. We especially love the part where he disclaims that he “can take a joke,” then goes on to prove that he, in fact, can not take a joke. As far as "vulgar," since Balman failed to specify what, specifically, he took issue with, we’re going to wildly speculate what he means by "obscene." Which do you think ticked him off more: (1) the use of "f**k," which was redacted as shown, or (2) the blatant heresy that Jesus simply wants us all to get along? You decide! Keep in mind that it’s impossible to argue that Christ is in favor of pandafucking (unless it’s between pandas). We prefer to think that Balman’s biggest problem lies in not touching enough of that sweet, sweet "outer fold" he likes so much. "You Suck" agreed, publishing a very special issue:

"REMOVING THE OUTER FOLD! A new catchphrase craze!"

1. An insult: "Seriously! How did you get so stupid? Did someone remove your outer fold when you were a kid?

2. A threat: "If I ever catch you doing that on my bed again, I’m going to remove your outer fold!"

3. A circumcision euphemism: "…And apparently it also smells good. That’s why I’m glad they removed my outer fold."

Yeah, that wingnut’s letter was a comic gold mine; kudos to Nolan Fabricius and Jeff Brown for taking full advantage. They published another one:

Old lady: "Hey…did you guys hear that you’re blasphemous?"

Slacker (to Jesus): "I didn’t know that you gave your followers the right to go around condemning people."

Zing! At this point, I almost started to feel bad for Ben Balman, but in appointing himself some kind of moral beacon, he asked for it. And fundie humor is like a bottle that never runs dry; you can just reach for it over and over again. So, here’s to hoping that "You Suck" never loses its buzz.

[You Suck@K-State Collegian]

pretentious literary douchebag, god is extra deadNovember 20, 2008 6:24 pm

FWIW, the Students for Free Thought have chalked a Nietzche quote by the Union: "A casual stroll through an insane asylum will reveal that faith proves nothing." It fits right in with the Bible verses chalked all over everywhere else on campus.

Also, if you’re using Twitter, you should follow Paradise Lost.

god is extra dead, shut up kansas, fixating on sex, convulsive hand-wringing, imagine my painNovember 17, 2008 9:29 pm

In a letter to the editor, fundie virgin Clareen O’Connor expressed shock and awe at a sex education ad.

I am profoundly disappointed in your decision to place an advertisement page promoting sex in one of last week’s papers. “MAJOR IN SEX AND YOU COULD SCORE $25,000” is boldly written on top as well as “and a $2 lift for your ‘studies’ plus trips, entertainment and other divisions to heighten your education.”

On the other side of the advertisement page is a drawing of a male with his arms around two females, all naked, with a blanket on them. The two females seem to be passing around products used for sex. Dotted lines leading from the sex products to these words: “Strawberries,” “Whip Cream,” and “Banana.”

Ha ha, "male with his arms around two females" sounds like she’s narrating something on the Discovery Channel. Anyway. Normally, I hate advertising in all its insidious forms and avatars. But I just don’t see the big f’ng deal here. Maybe that’s because I’m the biggest perv I know? Besides Madeline.

I was personally offended and shocked when my roommate, who was also put off when she saw it, showed it to me.

"Personally offended?" It’s not as though the ad came with a disclaimer, "Clareen O’Connor and her roommate are unpleasant people who you should never ever have sex with." Or would that have been better? I just don’t understand.

Sex among college students is already rampant enough as it is - why encourage it? Being a conservative Christian, I am strongly for abstinence before marriage. As such, I have decided to wait and keep my virginity.

Good for you, Clareen O’Connor. You and your Christian virginity are better than everyone else. It’s not like the mere suggestion of a threesome is enough to shake your faith.

It hurts me deeply that young people have this kind of lifestyle; that they do whatever “feels good” or satisfies their sexual drives during that certain moment in time. Uncommitted relationships lead to broken hearts and are not good for the soul or spirit.

You know what’s good for the soul and spirit? Haughty, judgemental Puritanism. That’s the only way to happiness. Clareen should know. She seems pretty happy.

If they have this kind of ruthless behavior, what will happen when they want to marry? How can they keep a committed relationship, which marriage is and requires if it is to last, if they haven’t held this kind of mindset or practiced such virtues? They will have nothing to give to their spouse since they spent and freely distributed their “love” to a variety of people and called them their boyfriends or girlfriends.

I was just talking to someone the other day about how many people avoid Christianity because they don’t want to be associated with naive, self-righteous prudes, and Clareen O’Connor just volunteered as Exhibit A. What enables her to go into these histrionics is that she profoundly missed the point of the ad. She looked at it with her Jesus glasses and couldn’t see anything beyond her own outrage. It was about sex education, not an invitation to the Houston 500. Why do you think she chose to see it that way?

[K-State Collegian]

not afraid to be servicey, god is extra dead, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, too christianeyOctober 20, 2008 10:38 pm

Last week Amanda Moerlien pondered over a struggle that has intrigued mankind ever since man wrote down random shit and called it "The Bible."

We so often hear how wrong it is to focus on material objects. Even the apostle Paul said, “the love of money is a root of all evil.”
Instead of focusing on wealth, we should be focusing on God.
As great as that sounds, faith doesn’t pay the bills, faith doesn’t put food on the table and faith won’t let me sit on my butt all day doing nothing and still be successful in life.
So why do I have to choose between one and the other? Well, apparently, because the Bible tells me to.
“No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money,” according to Luke 16:13.
Truly we all live in a world hobbled by its own moral ambiguity. Which do you do, eat or worship? Live in sin, or die and go to heaven? Persecute Jews, or persecute Muslims? Is it possible to have money and still be an ethical person? I just don’t know. Does "successful" only mean having a lot of money, or is it more closely related to loving others deeply and being deeply loved in return? Would the righteous thing to do be to just mooch off others, like Jesus would do? I wish there was some sort of guidebook for stuff like this. Not afraid to be servicey, Bailey Embry sent a letter to the editor, out-Christianing Amanda and pointing the rest of the Gentiles to some helpful references.
Scriptures like Psalm 35:27, 37:4, 3 John 2:1, Proverbs 13:22 and Luke 5:1-10 clearly state that the God of the Universe does not have a problem with individuals possessing money.
I believe he has a problem when individuals have a "wrong" relationship with money as seen in Scriptures like 1 Timothy 6:10 and Luke 16:13.
If she knows her Bible that well, imagine how diligently she’ll manage a stock portfolio! When the Jesus market goes south, sell sell sell! Or was it Hell Hell Hell? I always get those mixed up. Does it really make a difference?

[Source: K-State Collegian]

great moments in journalism, everything old is new again, god is extra dead, self-referential, fucking thursdays, shut up kansas, echo chamber of madness, hall of mirrors, laramie projectOctober 2, 2008 1:54 pm

Another reason to see The Laramie Project.

Led by Rev. Fred Phelps, supporters of Topeka’s Westboro Baptist Church plan to protest the Friday and Saturday night productions of The Laramie Project at K-State.

Ten years ago, Phelps also showed up at [Matthew] Shepard’s funeral.

“We do a reenactment of a Phelps scene in the play,” [Ariane] Chapman said. “It’s interesting that he’s a character in the play and he’s picketing the play,” she added.

In ten years someone will write another play about Phelps picketing a play in which Phelps pickets a funeral. Then Phelps will picket that, and another actor will show up to picket Phelps’ picketing, and then the universe will finally and instantaneously implode only to be replaced by something even more bizarre and self-referential, a universe in which homosexuals have written the Bible, God is a troupe of travelling actors, and all records of the whole thing are just an echo chamber of hyperlinks leading back and forth between each other, starting with this blog. Thanks to Phelps THE HOUR BADLY SPENT WILL BE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!! Until the whole implosion thing happens again. I have nothing to do with that.

[Source: K-State Collegian]

collegianism, pretentious literary douchebag, god is extra dead, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, sinners in the hands of an angry godSeptember 22, 2008 8:15 pm

Okay, not really. But. whether you’re for religion or against it, at some point you just have to come to terms with it. Mark Erbacher, noticing that the institution has come under assault in recent years — perhaps unfairly? — put forth his defense of religion, giving me a chance to heartily keep up the heathen assault.

According to Erbacher, in Germany, "government has realized that religion is not something to be feared but rather to be embraced, if for no other reason than the amazing things a faith-based group can do for a community." Ha ha ha ha soap made of Jews.

Religion has been given a bad rap in the U.S., but we should take a moment to consider that by its own nature, religion cannot be a bad thing. It is an absolute moral good that brings us together.

A personal Jesus can justify anything. Religion does not "get" a bad rap; it has earned it by empowering self-righteous hypocrites who believe, unquestioningly, that their own values are "absolute moral goods." You can tell when you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out he hates all the same people you do.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion overriding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side” [ed. note: unless WMDs are at stake].

In trying to end on this laughably false note of hope for true believers or whatever, Erbacher leaves me unconvinced. This essay just doesn’t have the fiery, brimstoney awesome that would really help me make up my mind.

"The bow of God’s wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood."

Okay. Now I’m convinced.

[source: K-State Collegian, Anne Lamott at Salon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God]

collegianism, god is extra dead, modern romance, the k-state collegian is just a fancy blog, in the biblical sense, marriage porn, hipsters can't love, this blog is not deadAugust 26, 2008 9:33 pm

We live in an age of disaffected cynism, of broken hearts, of souls begging for a way, a path, a simple truth that will lead to basic happiness. "Where is the instruction manual," we cry out, wringing our hands at the heavens.

Alyssa Reeves, in a column — nay, more than a column: a beacon of light and hope — in today’s Collegian, counselled readers in love to remember the true purpose of relationships.

As a follower of Christ, I turn to the one who created relationships. The Bible says in Lamentations 3:40, “Let us examine our ways and test them, and let us return to the Lord.”

The better we understand how something is designed to work, the less we will try to make it something it’s not. Have you ever tried cooking eggs in a toaster? The toaster was not designed to cook eggs.

Exactly. Have you ever try to make love to a toaster? I am so not doing that again. It never called me back. Jerk.

The most common misconception about relationships is that a person should find a soul mate to “complete” him or her. The problem is, this turns into spiritual idolatry.

We are to find fulfillment and purpose in God. Our spouse will fail as our “god.” No person can live up to such expectations.

Instead of finding the right person, falling in love and fixing our lives around this person for our future fulfillment, God’s design for relationships is to become the right person by doing what God does. This includes walking in love, fixing our hope on God and seeking to please him with our relationships.

I went to Christian schools growing up, and this kind of vague condescension, cookie-cuttering us as it does into the preacher’s superficial version of a Model Family Member In Christ while shaming us into silence when our individual hearts had individual concerns born of individual passions; this was their advice for everything. Along with "don’t ever masturbate."

[Source: K-State Collegian]

last night's party, not afraid to be servicey, god is extra dead, mouthpiece of the great beyond, in the biblical sense, silver bulletJuly 1, 2008 4:26 am

Silver Bullet’s friend Andy is in at least one band, and last night they played at the Malibu Inn (it’s not an actual inn). We picked up Andy’s sister Greta and made the trek up Pacific Coast Highway to Malibu.

The first act was acoustic; skinny black guy — Emory Davis — and his guitar. A girl chimed in for some duets. I liked her voice — it was operatic — but when she wasn’t singing, which was most of the time, she just sort of sat there. Greta was even more annoyed than I.

Gretta’s Jetta: Didn’t he say "she sings like an angel?"
Silver Bullet:   Apparently angels only sing falsetto.
Silver Bullet:   I don’t know about guys in those low-cut V-neck shirts. It disturbs me.

Cattiness or genuine dislike? I didn’t know what to make of any of this either. The guy’s shirt did hang too loosely on him and you could almost see nipple. Oh skinny emo dude, are you trying too hard or not trying hard enough? Does any of this matter? Music is soooo confusing.

 

They finished up and a team got the stage ready for the next band. A guy who looked like Jesus fiddled with some equipment then said "check one check two" into the mic, repeating this about ten times. "All sound guys look alike," Greta said.

After that, Andy’s band — Echo Division — hit the stage.

"I saw them at the Light House a few weeks ago and they were trying to be all pop-ish," Silver Bullet said. "It wasn’t working. They’re ten times better tonight."

True to form, I wasn’t impressed. They sounded kind of dull and the lead singer had this Dylanesque wheezey thing going on.

After a while even Andy started getting bored on the stage, because near the end of their set he started flashing gang signs. Then it was another band’s turn.

"Does anyone know who John Hinckley is?"

The name sounds familiar, but the category I picked tonight was "music for $10" and not "I know something you don’t" so maybe we could get on with the music thing. Hey, just for kicks, why don’t you go ahead and tell us who he is, lead singer? Thanks! Servicey!

Apparently, he shot Ronald Reagan so that Jodie Foster would notice him! It was love! Love drives us mad! That’s what the next song is about! Thanks professor; the lecture was much better than your music. Zing!

"I think these are all church bands," Silver Bullet said.

Makes sense. They all sound like Jars of Clay. You ever hear a rock band in church? They’ve got a captive audience, so they just keep going and going and going with the same languid Guitar Solo Of The Lord until you are begging, begging for the chance to sit down and hear a sermon.

I actually liked the next band. Andy was the drummer in this one. They were loud and upbeat. Then the lead singer wanted to, like, talk to us.

"Who here knows who John Calvin is?"

What is it with these nerdy musicians and their pop quizzes tonight?

Actually, he never explained who John Calvin is; only that "I’m a geek and I write songs about theology." Wankerish, but the music wasn’t bad, although it did not succeed with the stated goal of establishing the moral authority of the church. But this was a tough crowd for that anyway. It’s Malibu! We passed a Scientology church stronghold down the street on the way here.

your prose is too prolix, god is extra dead, femiladyism, rhymes with leather, required reading, red tent, in the biblical senseMay 20, 2008 8:03 pm

The narrative of the Red Tent — a book that I have never read (thanks for lending it to me, Rhymes With Leather!) — begins right after Jacob stole the family’s birthright from Esau and fled to escape the wrath of his brother or something. I’m not cracking open a Bible (which I have also never read) to look up the particulars of the story because eww. So, we hear, in a voice and language reminiscent of the Bible’s beautiful formality, the story of Jacob’s meeting Rachel and Leah, and the births of Jacobs sons and daughters, including the book’s actual narrator: Dinah, daughter of Leah.

The Red Tent was an actual tent that travelled with Jacob’s family and housed the women during their menstrual periods. This was not an exile or a punishment; rather, being in the red tent was an honour that all Israelite women shared. Jacob’s family scorned the women of Esau’s family for not having a red tent. In the tent, there was an underlying mood of solidarity among the women — even among rivals, like Leah — Jacob’s fruitful first wife, and Rachel, who, though nearly barren, was the one he loved most passionately. It is in the red tent that Dinah learns what a family is and what womanhood is. As she grows up, the story of Jacob becomes more peripheral while we, the readers, get a distinct portrait of womanhood in the time of the patriarchs (I don’t know if I should capitalize that and I’m not going to).

There is a formal, romanticized feel to Anita Diamant’s narrative voice. Landscapes, personalities, cooking, even sex and death all burn with a gentle glow in Dinah’s narration. I was impressed with how thorough this voice was: perfumey and smooth, somehow encapsulating all of Dinah’s personality.

So what made her story worth telling? Is it because she grew up knowing bigshot asshole patriarchs? There was something else lurking underneath this voice, thorough as it was, that seemed slightly frustrating and dishonest. Dinah doesn’t seem to be fully there when conflict arises. Because of this, at times it seems more like she is more interested in observing her own life than moving it along, as though it were just part of the scenery she was describing so sweetly.

The best example of this is a retelling of Genesis chapter 34: Dinah’s marriage to the Prince of Shechem. Although Dinah is wooed very tenderly and beautifully and falls in love with the prince and they have lots of great sex (yes, that’s pretty much the only part I paid attention to. Or, at least, I would have if I had actually read the book. Ahem), and the prince agrees that he and all of his kinsmen shall be circumcised to prove good faith before Jacob and his god, Dinah’s brothers act as though she has been raped. They take "revenge" by storming the Prince’s house at night, murdering him and all the other Shechemites there.

Dinah, obviously, is not too happy about this. But what could she do? Did I want her to go upside one of her brothers’ heads? Sure. But she couldn’t. Because they acted under Jacob’s sanction, and it is not possible for Dinah to act against the family hierarchy, whether the H.J.I.C. is male or female. And then it hit me: her lack of agency wasn’t dishonesty; it was her reaction to power and the structure of patriarchy: another lesson learned in the red tent.

your prose is too prolix, collegianism, pretentious literary douchebag, god is extra dead, fucking thursdays, gin & juiceMarch 13, 2008 12:44 pm

If Marquis Clark continues to take weak premises and weak topics and mix them with wordy, convoluted sentences, at some point I’ll have to assume that he doesn’t really know shit and isn’t worth another awesome snarky quip. Seriously, what’s going on here? In Study shows youth change affiliation, not core belief structures as they age, his claims are:

(1) People kinda sorta of change a few of their religious beliefs in the process of growing up. I want to weep when I see expressions such as “This volatility is occurring at the same time that it seems specific religious affiliation is playing an increasing role in the politics of your nation,” which brings me to your second claim.

(2) Religion plays a major role in political debates, too. No fucking kidding.

What is the source of this prolix prose, this pointless blabbering? I’m scanning the article, trying to pinpoint the source of the infection. Ah-ha! Paragraph 11: “The new Al Green album and a bottle of wine forced me to ask….” Blah blah blah. The question isn’t important. If you’re going to sit around and sip wine, of course your social commentary is going to sound like “The subtle ethereal pas-de-deux of Methodism is macadamized by furtive traces of Pleonasticism and helium.” Why don’t you try drinking something less foofy and more scotch-ey? And after you pound it back, give this column another shot (ha ha!) too.

your prose is too prolix, decline of civilization, terror alert mint green with stripes, end times, god is extra deadFebruary 16, 2008 9:07 pm

I volunteered to go on-stage for Fred Winters’ hypnotism show last night, and it was so educational! He sat the volunteers down on stage, 18 in all, in a semicircle. He talked with a pleasant kind of authority to his voice, and played some 80s music to relax us while he spoke.

It was nice! It was working! I was relaxed - not as deeply as the other recruits (the kid sitting next to me - dressed like Mystery - fell asleep with his head in my lap) - but I felt completely at ease. I didn’t feel the stage fright I usually feel, oh, all the time. I knew the audience was out there laughing at me, but that didn’t seem so important. "Nothing you feel is wrong," said Fred, rightly. They were still laughing, but it was like they were far off, behind a glass wall, up in space. Their volume was turned way down. Everything was fine. There was only music and the Voice of Fred. My feet were on the floor. My hands were in my lap. My eyes were closed. The Voice went up, it went down, it stayed the same, all at once. He counted to ten.

Suddenly, "Sleep!"

The way he said it, fast and powerful, like getting socked in the head; the same jolt, the same flash of white light at the moment of impact, but no aggression, can’t hit back, don’t even want to, just wanna sink into the chair.

"Sleep!" Pow!

My breathing was slow, steady. My head tilted forward toward my lap. Everything was so heavy. Everything just wanted to stay put. Everything was fine.

At first.

My arms and legs felt like cinderblocks, just like he said they would. That was nice. But the part of my brain that connects dots, articulates nuances, makes jokes, appreciates art; that part was turned off. Shut down. Out of reach. As though I could touch it, but the part I could touch was only a memory. I get that same stupid feeling from weed, which is why I hate being high.

After that his suggestions got hairy. Deep down, I didn’t really wanna dance, I didn’t really wanna see Fred naked, and I didn’t wanna act like Fred was invisible. He commanded us to forget our names. Yeah, right. He went to each recruit and asked them, one by one, "What’s your name?" Some were silent. Some stuttered. They even bantered with Fred about shit I’ve forgotten. But they. Just. Could. Not. Say. Their. Names. What gives? I could remember mine, "Hyper-literate Bastard," but it was distant, like the audience, up on a high shelf. I could just reach up and grab it - that’s all! Fred kept going. Students kept forgetting. Until Jeff.

When Fred asked his name, it came out right away, not even missing a beat. "Jeff." Suddenly the spell was broken for me, too. The microphone came down in front of me. I reached up to the shelf and gave Fred what I found: "Hyper-literate Bastard."

These things happen, he said.

From then on, the audience and the lights still had that same distant quality, but not as much so as before. The spell was broken. I didn’t feel like dancing anymore. Earlier, Fred told us that all he does is suggest; that hypnotism won’t work if we don’t open our minds and just let it happen. Well, it wasn’t happening. Maybe I had other things on my mind. Or maybe it’s because I was waltzing with a fat lesbian (Actually, I didn’t mind that so much. By the way, what is it with me meeting all these gay girls? Last semester I couldn’t meet a minority to save my life. Now they’re multiplying like goblins). At any rate, when he told me to act like I had laid an egg, I faked it.

winter of our discontent, god is extra deadFebruary 15, 2008 10:08 pm

While I was on my way home, a couple of girls dressed like Agent Scully stopped to chat with me. They were with Paige, a redhead who (1) was not dressed up, (2) was my classmate in Public Speaking last semester, and (3) I don’t like very much. Mind you, to make me dislike her, she had to overpower my deeply ingrained redhead lust. How did she accomplish this colossal feat? More on that in a minute.

The tall one introduced herself as "Sister Elizabeth." She led the conversation, talking with me about forming a personal relationship with Whoever and seeking a Purpose In Life (Nothing is true; everything is permitted). I was polite and respectful, I swear. After that, "Sister Carroll," who had nice eyes and entirely too much makeup, handed me a business card. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I looked at the card, then back at Paige, her auburn locks glimmering under the magical winter sun, and back at the card, as though it held the very secret of her (erstwhile?) doucherie.

Last semester, Paige’s speeches in class always came off as condescending and judgemental. Whenever I talked to her outside of class, I found her cold, snotty, and aloof. In hindsight I could have tried the ol’ "faith in the Lord" spiel to break the ice, but what if I did that and found out she really was the mean snob she only seemed to be? My entire faith in humanity was riding on this question, and to be honest, I wasn’t really willing to risk the answer. And I think that articulates what will probably keep me away from religion forever.

Between me and a personal relationship with God there always lies a Paige. A bullying hypocrite who thinks religion is a war you win against other people, instead of a way to open hearts and minds. When religion can make jerks into kind people, then will I make a joyful noise unto the Lord, but not a moment before.