Why am I thinking of Mandy Moore right now?

[trinityvixen]

For being a suspected atheist, a teacher in Texas has been put on administrative leave (and has every reason to assume the school board is looking to fire him).

The part that frightens me most is that this man wouldn't even confirm his religious standings and they roasted him anyway. It's not him being fired for being an atheist; it's him being fired (probably) for being suspected of atheism. Firing someone from a public institution for their religious beliefs is illegal and actionably so. The fact that this district thinks it can fire him because those in charge and one student who reported on him think they don't like his religious beliefs says a lot about the chutzpah these conservative, religious fuckholes have worked up over the past eight years. They're not used to people telling them they can't command the religious values of their public servants. That is very, very scary folks.

And yet one comment from a puported student makes me almost laugh:
The girl who made the accusations against Mr. Mullens is also trying to get several students kicked out of Brookeland for supporting Mr. Mullens. This past Friday she had the police officer talk to them because they were "harrassing her" even though two of the accuse haven't spoken to her since Mullen was suspended.She has said to me and several other students "I got Mr. Mullens fired, I can get them kicked out too."

It reminds me very much of the movie Saved!, where Mandy Moore's more-religious-than-thou behavior dictated who rose and fell in popularity her Christian high school. She thought she could shame and denigrate and even expel anyone who dared to refute her personal beliefs about and interpretations of the commandents of Jeebus with their sadly ordinary, human failings. Although Mandy Moore got served some justice as the film's villain, the point of the movie seemed to be less about punishing her than making the points that a) nobody is perfect and faulting people for being human is monstrous no matter how you cloak your evil in faith (as I posted about recently); and b) if your faith cannot withstand contrary opinions existing (let alone being voiced aloud), you must not have a strong sense of faith and perhaps that, not the other person, is your real problem. You cocksucker. (Sorry, I went too long there being polite.)

Comments

[equustel.livejournal.com]

Plenty are okay with still helping even if the people they help don't want in, and bless them, but these people seem to be the exception rather than the rule, especially when missionaries prize converts so highly.

See, maybe it's just because I'm extraordinarily picky about the churches I've been a part of throughout my life, but while I'm well aware organizations with these tactics exist, I've never in all my days even known a Christian who sponsors one of them - where the relief/food/money is withdrawn if the people aren't willing to accept the religion. In my experience, there are just as many genuine religious organizations out there with an eye to help, not to convert - people just don't hear about them as often. Unfortunately, this tends to be a global truth: the worst of people is what reverberates around the world, but the best of them is quiet, doing their work without a need to advertise it.

In a similar vein, just because Christianity in America is a pathetic, watered-down and twisted version of its original self (to put it lightly) doesn't mean that elsewhere in the world true Christianity isn't being played out in greater numbers than we realize. I'm sure that I sound wholly defensive on this matter, but I want to make it clear that I'm not ignorant of the failings of people when it comes to religion: I do, however, want to point out what a lot unfortunately don't get to see. True religion, after all, is defined by the Bible as caring for the poor. Full stop. And it's still alive and well today. Hasn't been killed off yet by all the abuse and misunderstanding, thank heaven. I know because this summer, several of my good friends are shelling out $4500 each to go to Zimbabwe, where they'll be eating the same food the people there are eating, living in the same kind of housing, etc. No special privileges. But a helluva lot of sacrifice and love, which is what those people need most of all. And that's what it's all about, right? :)

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know you're well-informed. You speak too well on this subject to be anything but. Your interest and caring does show, never you fear.

I guess the problem comes down to a matter of privilege first and foremost. Too many organizations just have paternalist/patronizing attitudes towards their relief activities, and this is a distinctly American failing as much as it is anything else. We expect to be lauded for work that should be its own reward. Witness the rest of the world thumbing their noses at us for the paltry sum we offered the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia and look at the offended reaction of some Americans. Now, some went "Well, what a bunch of ingrates," but the true humanists went "Our government is ridiculously low-balling on much needed relief, so we will open our own purses." That's charity I can get behind.

Basically, the more rules that you impose on your gift--things like the global gag rule come to mind--the less genuine it is as an effort to help the disadvantaged. Alas, a lot of religious institutionalization comes with extra rules of that sort. (Some of the BYU missionary work, for example, is extremely restrictive, but so helpful to the indigenous communities that it cannot be turned away for all that.) When it comes down to it, all charity should be about helping the poor sustain themselves--teaching them to fish, to misquote an old aphorism, rather than giving them fish. Insisting that they only fish a certain way is a good way to leave them dependent on your sea-food market.

And that's all I should say on that because I'm reduced to fish analogies. Alas.