What is a father to do when his daughter needs to go to the bathroom? This is one of many questions that perplex fathers of daughters.
Recently, in Frederick, Maryland, a father took his two daughters to the restroom — one daughter needed to use the toilet and the other needed a diaper check. A video report of what happened next is available here. What was normal for this father, and for many other fathers, frankly, was apparently abnormal for at least a couple of people at the Department of Social Services (DSS). What was abnormal about this, you ask? In this story, the father took the two daughters into the men’s restroom. A DSS security employee entered the men’s restroom shortly afterward to, more or less, accuse the father of some type of mental lapse or indiscretion. According to the father, this employee, a male, pointed to his crotch while commenting about what the young girls might see. Reportedly, another DSS employee witnessed the events and didn’t believe that anything inappropriate occurred in dealing with the situation.
Althought the account of these events is in dispute, a singular question remains: where else was the father supposed to take his daughters when they needed to go to the toilet?
I am a father and when my daughter was the same age as those of Donovan O’Neil, I also took my daughter to the mens’ restroom when she needed to use the toilet. Was I supposed to enter the womens’ restroom and assist my daughter there? What do you think would have occurred if I, an adult male, had entered the womens’ restroom with my daughter? Do you think the adult females would have liked that? Do you think I might have been called out of the womens’ restroom by an employee of the establishment, or worse, a police officer? Yeah, in our society, it sometimes sucks to have a penis.
What is more stunning about the O’Neil situation is that these events occurred in the Department of Social Services. If any department of your government should be able to understand a father needing to assist his daughters with toileting, it should be DSS. Does DSS not encounter families where the father is the only adult? Perhaps the father is divorced and the mother has abandoned the children, perhaps the mother died or she is in prison, or perhaps the father is at the mall with his two daugthers while the mother is at work … do any of these situations sound familiar to you? They should sound familliar to DSS. Also, if this situation is of such concern to the DSS, why don’t they offer facilities in their own building to accomodate famillies of whatever configuration?
This situation points to a larger problem for men. We live in a society in which men are assumed to do incorrect and inappropriate things, especially any activity which might, even remotely, involve our genitalia.
Why did the DSS employees react so coldly? Are they so profoundly unaware of their own roles and the roles of fathers? Have they not learned anything from the public they serve?
I’m currently slightly engaged in a conversation in Atheist Revolution’s comments to vjack’s “If you don’t believe in an afterlife, why be moral?” question. Vjack does a great job examining various atheist moral foundations, but he can’t address them all. Because, of course, morality is relative. Yes, I invent my own morality. But so do you.
I commented to add another moral foundation that should not be overlooked: selfishness. “What?”, you say, “Selfishness is immoral!” I don’t agree. Here’s my comment:
And there’s mere selfishness, a sense of survival. Humans are social creatures, meaning that our survival depends on our ability to work together. My individual survival depends greatly on my ability to acquire things from others that I could not acquire on my own. In return for such things, I help perpetuate an exchange of goods so that my supply is perpetuated. When I interrupt that supply for myself or for others, I threaten survival of others, but also, not unimportantly, myself. This is a fundamental incentive that I carry with me and apply both directly and indirectly. In other words, I’m not going to rob a bank, even if no one in my “food chain” (i.e., chain of necessaries) has money in that bank, because I would not rob a bank that is part of my food chain. That’s establishing a general moral principle based on a single applicable situation.
This is why I can simultaneously declare it immoral for myself to kill out of greed, but moral for myself to kill in order to protect my life (and, fundamentally, the things that sustain my life).
The sheer complicatedness of applied morality in itself precludes the idea of an absolute morality, let alone the idea of an omnipotent creature that enforces such a morality in an intangible post-mortem realm, but either fails or somehow desires not to enforce that “absolute” morality in the realm in which it occurs.
Perhaps I should have anticipated it, but following my comment came the classic theist response:
Hey Procrustes, you can declare it moral, but that doesn’t mean it is. What you’re describing is moral relativism, and that’s just logically inconsistent and incoherent, and hence irrational.
It seems that, perhaps, we’re dealing with a few different variations of the term “morality,” but despite such semantics, the context indicates that we’re really talking about the question of whether we can or should define morality (rules of behavior) as transcending individual human reasoning, or as a product of human reasoning, and thus subjective, therefore relative. Thus my perhaps too lengthy response:
Indeed, I am describing moral relativism. However, just by saying it’s logically inconsistent, incoherent, and irrational does not make it so. Feel free to provide some evidence that it’s logically inconsistent and incoherent.
By the way, if there is no absolute morality, then all morality is relative. I don’t buy into the nonsense that morality is absolute (and those who do cannot seem to come up with any consistent set of those supposedly divinely-given rules or the consequences for violating them), so morality to me (and all the other rational persons of the world) is inherently relativistic.
Here’s an example of how even “absolute” morality is not absolute: God says thou shall not kill, correct? But God also says kill in certain circumstances. So, what’s the absolute? “Just do whatever God commands, as interpreted by your preferred clergyman”? If there are exceptions, it’s not absolute. What about the classic example of not telling a lie? Is it *ever* okay to tell a lie? I could overwhelm you with hypothetical situations where you’d either dodge the question or rationalize your answer, but I lack the patience to humor you.
Instead, I’ll set out a proof, and you can feel free to go about attacking it if you like.
1) There is no evidence that morality is absolute.
2) If there is no absolute morality, human morality would not exist without the presence of humans.
3) Humans exist (therefore human morality exists).
4) Human thought and reason exists independently from human to human (i.e., humans do not have a collective intelligence).
5) Morality is a concept created by human thought and reasoning.
6) Morality in concept exists independently from human to human (i.e., humans do not have a collective moral concept).
7) Therefore morality is relative.
I also contend that applied morality may be treated as if it were collective among certain persons (e.g., in creating a society, rules are adopted, often based on a majority of agreed-upon interpretations of the members’ personal perceptions of what is and is not moral). But the fact that some samples of some societies may appear to agree across the board on certain moral issues does not prove that absolute morality is the cause and the application is the effect. For instance, if an African tribe practices polygamy and has no moral qualms about it, that does not prove that polygamy is absolutely moral. Obviously it is not accepted by much of the rest of the world as being moral, but if the rest of the humans in the world did not exist, polygamy would, to an alien observer, be absolutely moral to the existing humans. The fact that humans in different societies have agreed upon quite differing moral rules and freedoms without those societies succumbing to self-destruction is indicative that morality is relative and applied relatively en masse, but collectively in specified groups.
The argument that there is some external being critical of human behavior, who will judge humans upon death for their behavior, but not allowing those humans insight during their lives into what exact behavior is acceptable or prohibited, is outright nonsense, unsupported by evidence, and laughable at best. The fact that there are those who use this hogwash to manipulate other people is a testament to the fact that, indeed, there is no absolute morality, unless it happens to be human greed and corruption, which seems to be the reigning behavior among those who purport to spread the word of that very same imaginary being.
—
If you’re interested, there’s a decent discussion beginning in the Reddit comments.
Back in July, 2008, I alerted State of Protest readers to the novel way Kansas resident Sean Tevis used the Internet as a political campaign tool in order to make an incredible attempt to oust the obsolete incumbent Arlen Siegfreid, a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Regardless of the fact that the outcome was not in Tevis’ favor, he created an historic moment for the record number of donors he acquired as well as the uniqueness of his technologically progressive approach.
Simon Owens, at Bloggasm, brings to our attention that Tevis is at it again this year, announcing his plan to run in 2010.
So in Tevis’ new plan, he would visit a minimum of 50 politicians across the state and US to not only share the information he gathered from his constituents, but also to promote his own ideas for transparency in government.
Take a look at the Bloggasm article, which reviews Tevis’ past and future campaigns, and then head over to Tevis’ site and see what he’s been up to.
On one side is DC Councilman David Catania, one of two openly gay members of the council. On the other, disgraced former DC Mayor Marion Barry. Siding with Catania — the entire remainder of the council. Siding with Barry — a few clergy members and, according to Barry, “The black community.”
On Tuesday, the DC Council voted 12-1 to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. Originally having sided with the majority, Barry switched his vote after allegedly praying and consulting with his constituents and members of the religious community. The bill will now go to Mayor Adrian Fenty, a gay marriage recognition advocate, and assuming he signs, it will then go to Congress for a 30-day review.
Upon hearing the news that the bill passed the council, shouts erupted from outside the chambers, mostly caused by the gay marriage opponent clergy who shouted calls to have the majority vote councilmembers, especially Catania, removed from their seats.
When Barry was asked about what would happen when the council takes up gay marriages in DC as a result of Tuesday’s vote, he replied that DC would “have a civil war,” citing the adamant opposition by the black community. Despite the fact that Barry allegedly “agonized” over whether to oppose the bill, he ultimately decided to cater to the “ministers who stand on the moral compass of God.”
What kind of moral compass advocates war against those who just want to exchange vows and have some state-based benefits?
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? [<]
