Randall A. Terry (born 1959) is an American activist. A political conservative, Terry founded the anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue in 1987 and led the group until 1991. He has been arrested more than 40 times, most recently for protesting the commencement visit at the University of Notre Dame by President Barack Obama, who is pro-choice, by defying a court order to stay off the school’s property.
In 2003, Randall Terry founded the Society for Truth and Justice and conducted a program called Operation Witness. He was the spokesman for the Schindler family in the Terri Schiavo case. In 2006, he unsuccessfully ran as a Republican for state senator of Florida’s eighth district.
I’ll be trying to transcribe some of Mr. Terry’s announcements in the above videos (which I took, yay), and post them here soon. Stay tuned!
(Oh, btw, since it’s sometimes difficult to convey sarcasm on the interwebs, the title to this post is sarcastic.)
I want my 3 hours back. Seriously. Who do I see about that?
Inland Empire (2006), a movie by David Lynch, is a bizarre and contorted tale of making a movie. It’s so bizarre and contorted that no one should waste their time watching it. Please consider this a warning to avoid this movie at all possible costs. If you have a friend who insists that you should watch every work of David Lynch, make use of your Second Amendment rights.
Laura Dern is a great actress and she excels at her craft, especially in this movie. However, there is only so much one actress can do to tie together the parts of a movie which has no compass, no purpose and no conclusion. If I think I would like my 3 hours back after watching the final product, imagine how she feels. At some moment in this movie, probably at about an hour into the ordeal, I was no longer able to discern what was real and what was imaginary, which I am sure was part of Lynch’s master plan of deception and confusion. I was not able to recover the plot or the circumstance of the movie — it was as if the first hour of the movie no longer existed.
Avoid this movie. Go watch ants crawl up a wall instead.
This morning, one of the trains on my metro line went out of service, which isn’t unusual, forcing the excess of passengers in the next train to huddle in quiet desperation, trying their best not to touch one another or, heaven forbid, utter more than a monosyllabic grunt toward strangers they share such claustrophobic space with on a daily basis. That is the nature of the DC metro. I remember someone asked me a question while I was riding home one evening, and it took me a few moments to realize that I was being spoken to, and that someone actually wanted a response. It was like being acknowledged as alive in a sea of zombies. Perhaps that’s the same feeling religious people get when they delude themselves into thinking they’re being singled-out by a divine being. Jesus is my friend. God loves me. When there’s nothing else in the world giving me the attention I crave, I seek God’s attention. That’s a major selling point of religion — a cure for eternal loneliness.
It’s sad to think that we’re so antisocial or unnurtured that we crave something imaginary to make up for it. It’s like a child’s imaginary friend — always there, always loving. A pity that adults feel the need to do this, as well, but it’s also realistic. The world is a harsh environment, despite our luxuries. Not only are people generally cruel and unforgiving, but the actual environment is also unrelenting — people freeze and starve to death, and it’s 2009! It’s pretty easy to think how someone might wish to think that there is something out there better than this, and that the creator of everything is more than just a fairy tale. It might very well soften the pain that this world gives us.1
While standing there, in the metro train, trying to hold on to a handlebar straining my reach while simultaneously trying to avoid getting butt-bumped by the people behind me and trying not to shove my groin too far into the faces of the people sitting in front of me, I gave up my feeble attempt to read the morning paper. I looked up and saw the following advertisement: “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God. Come find out more. Maybe-its-God.org”, with an image of a church, emblazoned with a bright white star. At the bottom, “Archdiocese of Washington.”2
I didn’t grimace. I didn’t frown. My eyebrow may have shot up in curiosity, but my first thought was, “I might have easily had missed this. I really need to look around more and pay attention to my surroundings.” I groped for my camera and shot a few seconds of the poster while not caring what anyone else had to think about my behavior (which is unusual for me — I like my religio-curious anonymity). After putting the camera away, I read the poster a few times. How did I feel about it? Did it anger me?
I’ve written a bit about these pro- and anti-god posters on public transportation, and I insist that everyone has an equal right to say what they think — censorship of one is censorship of all. So, unlike many of the religious people protesting the atheist signs, I don’t condone judging on the basis of content whether a statement can or cannot be made. However, that doesn’t prevent me from having my own feelings and opinion about the content of these ads. An earlier ad, near the holidays, suggested quite sternly (using a paraphrasing of a bible verse) that since I am an atheist, I must be a fool. I didn’t much like that one. It’s name-calling, rude. Although ads like that might depict honest perspectives, such callousness is not necessarily beneficial for either side.
Taking that into consideration, this new sign was actually quite well done, and believers and nonbelievers alike can learn a bit from it. First of all, the sign doesn’t point fingers. It doesn’t accuse, and it doesn’t assume anything about the reader. If you’re not longing for something, it’s not speaking to you — perhaps your life is filled with the joy of astrology or pet grooming or even biochemistry; it allows for that and doesn’t pass judgment. If you are longing for something, it’s speaking to you, but it’s passively offering a suggestion — maybe it’s God. Certainly. It may be that you are, indeed, longing for God. Plenty of people do long for some sort of spirituality, divine connection, keen insight into the whys of the world. God, to many, fits that description. Of course, I don’t personally think that God is the answer to any longing I may feel, but who am I to deter others from taking that path or testing it to see if it’s right for them?
An ad like that is simple, compelling, non-judgmental, and, most of all, it’s true. I’m not saying that God exists, but I am saying that the statement “Longing for something? Maybe it’s God.” is not untrue, and the gentleness of its delivery, with the added “Come find out more” is a hook quite difficult with which to find fault. This is what is missing from many other pro- and anti-god ads, and something that should be seriously considered by advertisers.3
One example of a potentially neutral, possibly inviting message is that of the atheist billboard campaign started by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason (“PhillyCOR”), stating simply, “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone.”
This is a straightforward, not untrue message, offering a bit of social comfort to those who think similarly. Although it’s not as immediately inviting as the Archdiocese ad, it’s not harsh or bitter like other ads from both sides. Anyone should be able to look at the ad, answer the question, and then either ignore the ad or read on for more information. “Don’t believe in God?” Yes, I don’t believe in God. What now? I’m not alone? There are others out here in the world bold enough to call out to me on a billboard? Now I’m interested! In the alternative, if I did believe in God, I could just stop right there, theoretically, and this billboard, just like the Archdiocese poster, doesn’t demand that I continue. Most importantly, neither make accusations about my morality, intelligence, or eternal soul if I do read on.
A more holiday-oriented atheist ad states, “Is belief in God necessary? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” suggesting that morality is pre-religion, either genetic or just a result of reason, or both, and that one can be good without God. This sign got a lot of flack in the media. It’s the “controversial atheist sign.” The perhaps subtle difference between this and the previous sign is that the former was passive, while this sign preaches. Yes, I said preaches. What I mean by that is that it is effectively telling you what to do — “be good” — and why — “for goodness’ sake.” Although I might agree, it’s still an imposition. It’s not unlike an evangelist telling me that if I don’t repent, I’ll go to hell. That’s making a factual assertion. Despite the fact that I fully agree with the idea that God is unnecessary, the idea that I must be good for goodness’ sake (if I’m to be good at all) is not something I can fully back, and not something I think is supported by science.
What in hell is goodness, anyway? Yes, it’s just a play on words, I know that. But, again, it’s someone telling me what to do, and why. That rubs me the wrong way, as, apparently, it did for various religious complainers who tried to have DC metro remove anything with an anti-god message (kudos to DC metro for refusing). Some religious organizations, on the other hand, responded in kind, offering up a twisted retort4 — Why believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness’ sake. – GOD.
Although those advertisers should get a hell of a lot of flack from their own side for being so arrogant as to put words in God’s mouth, they do get a modicum of credit for wordplay from the atheist ad. It might have come off as less abrasive had it taken a different perspective other than from God’s own lips — for example, if it had said, “Why believe? Because God created you and loves you, for goodness’ sake.”, then it’s slightly less self-righteous. However, still, it’s making a factual claim — this is the way things are, period. That feels almost threatening to me. It reminds me of the fire and brimstone sermons of the south, where I lived much of my life. It’s not inviting at all, and it presumes that whoever created it is a literal spokesperson for God, or that the person is, indeed, delusional. Contrast that with the first atheist campaign ad I addressed that merely asks a question, and then comforts the reader, suggesting that there are others who don’t believe. No forcefulness or coercion. No threats. No accusations. Also, no promises or questions of fact. That makes it appealing.
Considering what might be a set of positive characteristics for any ad, atheist or religious, a good response to the newest pro-God ad could borrow the original pattern, but make it inviting.
Here’s my humble attempt:
—
Longing for something?
Maybe it’s science.
Come find out more.
—
What do you think?
—
UPDATE: I’ve gotten a lot of “longing for science? doesn’t lift up my skirt” comments. Is the idea that God takes care of some emotional need that science or other worldly pursuits cannot match, or is it just that out of all the categories to choose from, “science” just isn’t appealing in a way that would ever reflect “longing”?
Fine. Here’s my new one:
Longing for something?
Maybe it’s sex.
“Come” find out more.
You might be thinking that rich people feel no such pain; they have every luxury, whatever they want, they get. However, that would be overlooking the fact that we’re all very emotional beings, and similarly limited in our physical and mental capabilities. Rich people feel physical and emotional pain, and they eventually die, like the rest of us. There’s no reason to think that a rich person wouldn’t feel the need for a special friend, as much as anyone else. [<]
Head to the Archdiocese website for more information, an explanatory video from Archbishop Wuerl, and the suggestion that the ad is focused mostly on former churchgoers. It’s evident that church attendance is constantly in decline, and that obviously worries religious organizations that are fueled by donations and popularity. The Archdiocese site even says, “If you have been away from church for some reason, I invite you to come back again to pray and to attend Mass.” Honestly, one of my first wicked thoughts upon seeing the poster was, “What, are you longing to have your children sexually abused?” But I found that unfair. Although the Catholic church should be brought up on charges (and its tax-exempt status revoked) for its reprehensible mismanagement of the sexual abuse situation, every individual in the church cannot be blamed for the acts of a few, just as we cannot blame an AIG administrative assistant for causing a financial disaster. Unfortunately, the church does create the conditions where sexual deviancy thrives, and it perpetuates falsehoods about sexuality in ways that endanger entire nations. So, why am I not riled up at the advertisement? Because I endorse individual choice and responsibility as well as free speech. Which is why I think maybe an ad that departs significantly from my suggestions in this article might be appropriate in response: “Longing for something? Please don’t let your path end at the Catholic church. It stands for tyranny and injustice everywhere, and it harbors dissatisfaction, distrust, and doubt even within its own ranks regarding its adherence to medieval doctrine and sexuality. Go there and learn all you can about it, though, and make your own decisions. When you want to learn the facts about life and not some old man’s perverted vision of the truth, come back here, and we’ll talk.” Perhaps that’s too harsh. [<]
See http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/archives/156393.asp for a quick take on the Washington State controversy over the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s anti-religious sign; also see the Atheist Bus campaign at http://www.atheistcampaign.org/ for Ariane Sherine’s “There’s probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life” bus ads. Is this another imposition, or is this message somehow carefree and friendly? [<]
“I Give Evolution Two Opposable Thumbs Up” reads the bright blue rear window decal on my car. I have been given much positive feedback on it from strangers. Their feedback gives me a sense of hope that science is valued in Texas in spite of recent discussions by the Texas School Board regarding the watering-down of the science curricula regarding biological evolution1 .
Why do I need hope? I need hope because our nation, once a place to grow one budding scientist after another is failing. We don’t make scientists, we import them. If it were not for overseas engineers and scientists, the US would be trailing behind other nations in the fields of technology and science2 . What kind of future will the children of the U.S. have if the nation is poorly educated in science? Without proper education in the sciences, how can we properly overcome economic, energy, and environmental crises? The United States of America has a short but rich history of innovation and advancement.
What happened? We can point fingers at the quality of our educational system or at the parents who are not involved in their child’s schoolwork. Well, we can point fingers anywhere, really.
However, today I would like to point my finger at the unpatriotic U.S. citizens who oppose a proper education in the sciences. These folks want to teach science in a manner that will not conflict with a book that is a few thousand years old because of their faith. Religious faith should not be mixed with science. Fear and competition led us to achieve scientific greatness when we conquered outer space. It is now ignorance and religious dogma that has led us to our decline in scientific advancement.
We provide an ugly disservice to our nation’s heritage of innovation- one that has made us a great nation, when we place the obstacle of religious dogma in the way of scientific progress.
Rachel Maddow, host of (surprise) The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and Air America (the latter of which, inconveniently, my work blocks via Web(non)sense), likened the long lines and long waits associated with early voting with a sort of poll tax, because time, as the vast majority of us know, is money. More accurately, time is paying rent, feeding the kids, and not getting fired from our job because, for some insane reason, we don’t believe in allowing people ample time to vote. I’ve heard horror stories of people who couldn’t vote in the last election because their bosses threatened to fire them if they missed any work during the work hours, which, oddly enough, coincide with polling station hours.
Why can’t we take three days to vote? Why can’t we vote on a weekend? Vote at night? Why can’t we make voting more efficient, more modern, so everyone gets to vote? This village-style voting of everyone trudging up to the local church or school may have worked when there were only a few million of us, but please can we improve our methods and technology to match our ever-increasing population? Honestly, I don’t think we, as a nation, ever modernized voting to a satisfactory extent after women’s suffrage. Or, hell, even when we “allowed” blacks to vote.
(Aren’t we a nation of tolerance? Aren’t we a nation of example? We had to AMEND the Constitution to “give” the right to vote to blacks, and then decades later to women, because not only could we not just imply that the Constitution already allowed for it (and therefore all we would have had to do was just enforce it), but also that the white men of this country were too full of themselves to consider, when writing the Constitution and accepting it, that blacks and women are people, too! /rant ).
Not only that, but a number of states are announcing that they’re getting rid of multi-million-dollar electronic voting machines.1 It’s more reliable, they say, to cast paper ballots. Yeah, just ask Florida.
I got a firm-wide email today: “The firm encourages all of its employees eligible to vote to do so, preferably before or after work, or during your lunch break….” Let’s see, it takes me an hour and a half to get from work to my polling place. What’s my lunch break, again? An hour? Hah! Well, my firm also indicated that I’d be able to use leave time, or time off without pay, if necessary, to vote. And, of course, I have to let them know in advance whether the lines will be so long that it will require me to let them know in advance that the lines are too long. Oy.
And I’m not complaining! I’m one of the lucky few who doesn’t have a bitch of an employer who will fire or threaten to fire (I swear that’s unconstitutional) people for not working. Even if they don’t do that, as indicated on The Rachel Maddow Show, it’s 20% of a week’s pay to wait in a line for eight hours! Hell, I’ve waited in an ER for 9 hours just for them to tell me I wasn’t dying. I’ve waited 6 hours in the DMV, 5 hours at an airport, and many other hours in many other ways. None of that was life-altering like the indirect stripping away of someone’s right to vote. It’s unconscionable to make anyone wait more than an hour to vote.
Go watch Rachel’s rant, and then make sure you’ve got her great show added to your favorites.
