Well, This Might Be a New Angle

Did you know black women are in a crisis? A marriage crisis? Forty-two percent of us have never been married and that spells OMG!!! DOOM!!!

Seriously, how could you not have heard about it? It's been a hot topic for the past few years now (And here's a timeline from just the last few months!). Media outlets have been all over it. Scholars at Yale even did a study and Oprah got in on the hype.

Yesterday, Liss sent me an article that captured an argument that was new to me. It poses the question: Does the black church keep black women single? "A-ha," I thought (after I picked up my jaw) "yet another way to keep this largely manufactured crisis going."

Why am I so aggravated, you might ask, if all these articles are simply stating a true fact? I'm not bothered by someone saying 42% of black women have never been married. I am bothered by how the tone and content of these articles often play into old tropes of black women as undesirable and of black communities on the verge of collapse.

They're also plain old sexist for a number of reasons. For one thing, this is always a crisis for black women. As one of my colleagues pointed out when we did a presentation on this, the percentage of black men who have never been married is quite similar (43% maybe--I need to find the number she unearthed) but we never hear about the black man's marriage crisis. The "problem" is quite often cast as black women having the nerve to get educated/be successful. This crisis also presumes that women are incomplete without men and marriage, that nothing we've accomplished matters, that contentment and happiness cannot exist for single women.

The "marriage crisis" is also used to obscure systemic/institutional causes of larger problems like poverty and lack of equal access. As I wrote in my half-hearted review of CNN's "Black In America"

After watching parts and pieces of CNN's Black in America: What's Wrong With The Black Woman and Family last night, I was worried.

I mean, I'm single, educated, and a mother. I felt practically doomed.

But! CNN has the solution for the problem I didn't even know I was: marriage. Yep.

See, marrying would mean that I wouldn't be a single mom anymore. And, it would magically mean no more poverty for single moms! Never mind that

1) Many single moms (like me) have arrangements that work for us and our children. I am single because I'm not married, but I'm not raising my child alone.

2) We refuse to adequately address pay equity and the devaluation of women's work which contribute to the impoverishment of women and children.

3) We've stigmatized and rendered thoroughly inadequate any system of social provision.

4) Marrying a guy who does not work or who works in low-wage labor won't solve much of anything.

5) What about single moms who don't want to marry? Is that not a valid option when you're poor?

6) What about single moms who don't want a heterosexual marriage because they're lesbian or bisexual?

I'm also irritated because no matter how much we analyze, challenge, and try to debunk the crisis, the news organizations proceed willfully unaware with these stories.

The other major source of my irritation/aggravation? So often the solution to the marriage crisis is presented as black women's need to settle/compromise. Our standards are too high, apparently. In that sense, the argument that "the" black church "keeps black women single" is not new. From Debborah Cooper (the article is based on a discussion she began):

"Black women are interpreting the scriptures too literally. They want a man to which they are 'equally yoked' -- a man that goes to church five times a week and every Sunday just like they do," Cooper said in a recent interview.

"If they meet a black man that is not in church, they are automatically eliminated as a potential suitor. This is just limiting their dating pool."

Now, I can understand Cooper's critique on some other points--she writes, for example, about how black churches are structured around "traditional gender roles which make women submissive to and inferior to men." But if a woman has made up her mind that it is important to marry a man who shares her beliefs and values, why all the demands that she compromise? Is that unreasonable? Don't women other than black women have similar desires?

My jaw dropped again when Cooper suggested that church-going black women should give up their Sunday morning habits to "leave-and go where the boys go: tailgates, bars and clubs."

Cooper says she is trying to empower black women. But what is empowering about giving up something to which you are dedicated to linger around places you might find questionable or unpleasant in effort to "get" a man?

To me, this sounds like more of the blame-the-black-woman-for-this-imaginary-crisis. What do you think?
___________________
I should really, really do another post on one magical solution that's been posited as the "crisis" has grown--interracial marriage. Of course, the issue is not interracial marriage itself, but the portrayal of it as an easy cure-all.

Yet Another Note on Tyler Perry...

... because a friend posted this link on my fb page.

What I said to another friend on twitter:

I'm very, very bothered by the messages he puts out, particularly b/c so much of his audience is black women. it's how i feel about some blk churches. we go show our loyalty, spend our precious time and give our hard earned $ to hear everything that's wrong with us.

When I think about it, for Perry and some churches, it's an almost-perfect set-up. If you disagree with the messages, it's because you're deeply entrenched in sin, your views are tainted by "worldly" philosophies like feminism (rather than "rooted in the Bible"), or you're just angry because the pastor has "stepped on your toes."

Never is the problem the sexism/misogyny/homophobia/internalized racism* so apparent in the message. Nor, in the case of Perry, as my friend noted, is it the "minstrel show (held up as 'real') and... transvestitism played for laughs."

Previously-published reasons Tyler Perry makes me roll my eyes sometimes.
___________________________________
*I've heard some sermons that leave me wondering, "Wow, how did he seamlessly combine the Bible and the Moynihan Report like that?"

Things Seen 12

Procured by mrs. o during her countryside travels:



A few incomplete musings (I should probably duck and cover):

1) The pro-choice position is not about demanding the termination of any and every pregnancy.

2) As mrs. o appended to her e-mail, these are not the times of Mary and Joseph, for many of us. Part of being pro-choice is about working towards and respecting women's autonomy. What autonomy did Mary have? She is primarily revered for having been a "vessel."

Her worth was tied up in her virginity--if her unmarried pregnancy had been found out she could have been killed; she was no longer a desirable marriage prospect.

Even carrying a pregnancy that, in the words of Sojourner Truth, man had nothing to do with, Mary found her baby's ancestry traced through her husband and her husband named the baby.

3) One of the things that people who are pro-choice advocate is strong support systems for pregnant women so that a full range of CHOICES are open to women. A literal interpretation of the story of Mary's pregnancy reveals that she, as a girl described as humble and devout, had the support that she would've considered most important--that of her God. Plus, Mary had internal insulation from the slut-shaming that complicates many teenagers' pregnancies.

4) The logic behind the question on the marquee is faulty:

a. It is based on the comparison of Mary with other teenaged girls who have
unexpected pregnancies. Yes, Mary was young, with an unplanned pregnancy, and could have faced death. That last factor cannot be overstated. But Mary had a kind of support (see #3) many girls don't. Because the angel appeared to Joseph as well, she also had the protection of being married before her pregnancy was apparent.

b. Emmanuel Baptist Church uses the argument to "rebuke" pro-choicers and claim that EBC is supportive of "life." But it is who they don't rebuke that demonstrates, again, that the pro-life position is one that is not so much centered on "protecting life," but on regulating how women express their sexuality and how they reproduce. If church members care so much about life, why don't they, when using Mary as an example, critique the society in which she lived--one that would have killed her and ended her pregnancy as well? Especially when that is a danger many women still face.

c. It doesn't work as well if you substitute other parents. I shouldn't say it, but I thought it, and according to my mother, it's the same. Seriously, plug in the names of the parents of someone you believe is truly evil.

Things My Heart Can't Take Too Much More Of

I'm late to this. Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow, a 13-year-old Somali girl was stoned to death for adultery.

From what I gather, her father tried to report that she was raped by three men. Instead of apprehending the rapists, the militia held her for adultery.

She was sentenced to death and stoned in a public execution.

And as if it isn't enough to imply she asked for death by committing the offense of being raped, I also found this quote that maintains she literally asked for it:

Our sister Aisha asked the Islamic Sharia court in Kismayo to be charged and punished for the crime she committed," local Islamist leader Sheikh Hayakallah told the crowd.

"She admitted in front of the court to engaging in adulterous sexual intercourse," he added.

"She was asked several times to review her confession but she stressed that she wanted Sharia law and the deserved punishment to apply."

And when her family tried to intercede at her execution because of her screams:

[G]uards opened fire, killing a child, the witnesses said.

Hmmm...

Some rambling thoughts...

No, I don't think it's anyone's business that Bristol Palin is pregnant. As a formerly pregnant teenager who made a different choice, I don't think she should be shamed.

Still, I can't help noticing how markedly diferent the rhetoric/coverage surrounding her pregnancy is when compared to young women of color--particularly the reactions from conservatives and evangelicals. To sum it up:

"When the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, minority teenage mother growing up in some (presumably Democratic) urban area, that pregnancy becomes fodder for lectures from conservatives about bad parenting, the perils of welfare spending and so on. But when the subject is a pregnancy to an unwed, white teenager from some small town in a Republican state, that pregnancy is...a celebration of the wonders of God's magnificence--and choosing life!" ― Thomas Schaller

Via Prof Tracey. (I'm assuming that works in the same way that it's "endearing" that Palin is a mother of five but a poor woman would be treated scornfully for the same?)

At the back of my mind, since I read about this, I've been thinking what if Malia or Sasha Obama was older and pregnant? Can you imagine the tropes that would be trotted out? The "See, I told you sos?" The condemnation--not only of the Obamas, but of African Americans in general--from the very people who are closing ranks around Bristol Palin? I do not think it is an invasion of the Palin privacy to say, yes, those people are hypocrites.

What it comes down to, again, is reproductive freeedom. You see, not only does Bristol Palin have the right, in a legal sense, to choose to continue this pregnancy, she also has a "cultural right" to be a mother. What do I mean? She's a white woman, part of a group whose role as mother is encouraged and rewarded. Not so for women of color who are questioned as mothers, as I noted a year-and-a-half ago when talking about children who were ripped away from their mothers because of ICE raids:

A discourse has developed in this country to support stealing our children away from us that attacks us as immoral, "illegal," or uneducated. I see this raid on a historical continuum with black children sold away from their mothers and Native children forced into "Indian schools" so they could be "properly" Christianized and Americanized. In fact, Americanizers of the late 19th/early 20th century spent inordinate amounts of time threatening to take immigrant children from their parents, telling immigrant mothers how their methods of child-rearing were substandard to those of more WASP-y Americans, probably as much time as 20th century welfare critics spent convincing themselves that poor black women did not really love or want their children--they only had them to get more out of the system--and as much time as 21st century anti-immigration proponents spend convincing themselves that Latinas don't really love or want their children--they just want anchor babies.

At the same time all these theories hurt our children, they hurt us, too. They justify the exploitation of our labor--it's okay if we work long hours in dangerous jobs; our children don't really need us. They justify the exploitation of our bodies--after all we're manipulative women not above using them for material gain. They justify the continual denial of the most basic rights to us.

Bristol Palin's future mothering is not as worrisome to us as that of the girls whom we are taught to think of as typical teen mothers.

To be fair, some conservatives have at least admitted the problem, in their eyes, isn't wholly teenage pregnancy, but unwed motherhood. I guess marriage to (typically) another teenager magically eradicates all the potential problems associated with the pregnancy itself not to mention the poverty that often comes afterward. So perhaps the Palin's carefully tacked on "and will marry the baby's father" changes how news of Bristol's pregnancy is being received, as well. (I swear, I want to tell some people, we can add and subtract; we're still going to know if people had sex/got pregnant before marriage).

Btw, I'm sorry, Sarah Palin can't have it both ways. Her daughter's pregnancy can't simultaneously be "no reflection on her" and proof that she (Sarah Palin) "walks the talk." It is Bristol Palin who's "walking the talk."

So Timely

Yesterday, while thinking about my junior class trip to the King Center, I went to the Center's website and saw excerpts from Dr. King's sermon, "The Drum Major Instinct." I found the full text in his papers. And there was something so timely about much of the sermon.

For example this southern/labor historian's heart jumped when she read Dr. King's analysis of the wages of whiteness:

The other day I was saying, I always try to do a little converting when I'm in jail. And when we were in jail in Birmingham the other day, the white wardens and all enjoyed coming around the cell to talk about the race problem. And they were showing us where we were so wrong demonstrating. And they were showing us where segregation was so right. And they were showing us where intermarriage was so wrong. So I would get to preaching, and we would get to talking—calmly, because they wanted to talk about it.

And then we got down one day to the point—that was the second or third day—to talk about where they lived, and how much they were earning. And when those brothers told me what they were earning, I said, "Now, you know what? You ought to be marching with us. [laughter] You're just as poor as Negroes." And I said, "You are put in the position of supporting your oppressor, because through prejudice and blindness, you fail to see that the same forces that oppress Negroes in American society oppress poor white people. (Yes) And all you are living on is the satisfaction of your skin being white, and the drum major instinct of thinking that you are somebody big because you are white. And you're so poor you can't send your children to school. You ought to be out here marching with every one of us every time we have a march."

And an encapsulated critique of the U.S. as warmonger:

God didn't call America to do what she's doing in the world now. God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war as the war in Vietnam. And we are criminals in that war. We’ve committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation.

And a wonderful sentiment , one that I think shapes the spirituality of people like my mom and Quaker Dave, one that I'm working and struggling to live by:

And so Jesus gave us a new norm of greatness. Recognize that he who is greatest among you shall be your servant.... (I)t means that everybody can be great.... You only need a heart full of grace, a soul generated by love. And you can be that servant.

Maintaining Segregation

When I made the commitment to start blogging again, my goal wasn't to come here and report everyday on how racism is alive and thriving in my area. But some stuff, I just gotta tell.

I live in an area of the South that was largely biracial--(non-Hispanic) black and white--and racially stratified for most of the 20th century. But, in the early 21st century, things, at least on the surface, are changing. The geographic boundaries that separated the "black" and "white" sections of town are increasingly disregarded. Poultry processing plants and timber industries have attracted a number of Latino residents to the area. And we have our first black mayor.

There is the problem of white flight--there are fewer than ten white students at the local school, though the town is still about one-third white. Still, it's changed significantly since I was growing up here.

Yesterday, my younger cousin was at our house visiting my son and nephew. At some point, he was ready to go so that he could play basketball at the gym of First Baptist Church. I was a bit surprised as First Baptist is a "white" church. The only church with a predominantly white congregation in my town that routinely reaches out to the whole community* is Pisgah Baptist. My son and nephew asked to go and my dad said no. When they walked out the door, he told me the reason he said no was, "I don't see how they can justify letting the black kids have just one night."

"What?" I asked. He repeated it. I asked for more details and he explained. The gym is open five nights a week. White children can go two nights, Latino children can go two nights, and black children get Thursday night.

"What?" I mean, that's all I could say. "Is that what people do or did the church people say that?" I asked my dad. Again, he repeated the breakdown. "No, Daddy. Did they say that?"

And my dad, who's a deacon at my church, finally confirmed that, yes, they said that. They extended the invitation to our church officers that way. And our pastor politely declined.

I'm still saying "what?" What makes the people at First Baptist think this is okay? Because I really believe they think they're being generous. What makes them think our kids can't play together? And why, as I've told this story over and over to (black) people in the last 24 hours, has the response still been, "Why do our kids get only one night?"

Apparently, we've become so accustomed to the division that it's like second nature.
____________________________________________________
*Which is not to imply that the black churches here do conduct community-wide outreach programs. The churches, at least, have changed little.

Janitors seek help from church leaders today

Read here.

I'd like to believe the reasons I'm watching this strike so closely are related to my interest in U.S. labor, economic justice, and my belief that people deserve better.

But that's all my "head" stuff. My heart knows that it's because they remind me so much of "my" workers. And in the case of my workers, churches have provided immeasurable assistance in the push for justice.

I hope they step up again.

Is This New?

Never, in all my years of living in the Bible Belt, have I seen something like this, directed specifically at children. Check out this treat my kid got in his bag last night:

I mean, I'm all for sharing the good news, but to specifically "market" to kids (Jesus is the real (emphasis in the original) Superman)? And look, they ask the kids to fill in their addresses and send this thing in with a box checked "Yes, I now trust in Jesus!" Is a little bitty thing like this enough to convince someone who really needs convincing? And should you be asking people's children to mail in stuff? Who's comfortable with their kid receiving mail from unknown entities?

Whenever you see me asking a bunch of questions like this, trust, I'm a little agitated. I can't explain it exactly--it's obvious that I don't mind my kid hearing and knowing about Jesus. And it's not that I think everything has to be filtered through me--that is contradictory to my denomination's belief in the value of a personal relationship with God.

But this really got to me. This paper has a number for kids to call. The only time it suggests consulting your parents is if you go to their website. My kid had his already filled out!

It's been a long day. I'm 73% sure I'm overreacting. But good grief!

A Quote

I'm starting to believe maybe my brain is in a phase of acute politicization. I saw this quote the other day and immediately thought, "Oh, is that the only example they could use? Is that really an innocent example?" Here it is, found on a flyer encouraging people to turn to Jesus (of course, my issue is not with people turning to Jesus--I often recommend it :-):

If you turn to God, you turn from sin. A turn to something requires a turn from something else. For example, if you turn to the west, you must turn from the east.

That is all.

The Conflicted (black) (woman) (Christian)

Out of sheer laziness, I'm going to base the following on personal opinion and observation. I am not the only observer of such things, but it's midnight and the only reliable source whom I can think of who has engaged the issue is Deborah Gray-White. Maybe Charles Payne a little bit. But I digress.

What I've been thinking about is ongoing conflict/bitterness between black men and women. What I want to write about is how disheartened I am because I think black churches exacerbate it and tend to place all the responsibility squarely in the laps of women, making it another sign of "Eve's curse. "

An example--two Sundays ago, the pastor at the church I attend here, was making a joke about men who "pop their suspenders" and announce that they are "the man of the house." "If you have to do that," he noted, "then you're probably not the man of the house" (and no, I'm not getting into defining what "man" in this context means and what attributes are assignable to that being). And his next phrase was, "And if you live with a black woman, she probably tells you, 'You'd better sit down and be quiet, contribute something to this house,' but I won't go into that." Indeed, he didn't have to go into that because he quite often makes his point about bossy, emasculating black women. The problem with black families, in his opinion (and in that of many others), is that black women don't let black men be men. He has preached about how evil (yes, evil) it is for black women to assume certain positions inside the church--namely those of pastor and deacon. It is a bid for power that is not supposed to be ours, he says, for how could women, commanded by God to be submissive, lead a church?

And lest ye think that I have only observed this at my local church, let me describe a conference the pastor at my home church had with the young women of my church. I'll begin by saying my church at home is not so rigid--as in many black churches, women are the majority and the most active. And the church acknowledges that indirectly--women participate on most committees, head different organizations, and are quite vocal. The latest pastor was elected, in part, because the women of the church pushed for him so forcefully. Women are still left out of the pastor-and-deacons circle, but that actually causes a lot of woe for the deacons. They make decisions, pass down these edicts, and if the women of the church don't like them, they make it known. And when the women in my church don't like something, it has very little chance of succeeding. But back to this conference.

You see, Rev wanted to talk to us about relationships between black women and men. And, I will admit, we had some pretty stinging observations--everything from "They cheat," to "They're insecure," to "Lord, I hope my son turns out differently." (And remember, these are based on the experiences of one group of women and should not be construed to encompass or describe all black men). Still, every single one of us was determined that if we were to spend our lives with another person, we wanted it to be a black man. After listening, Rev, quite politely and in his usual intelligent-and-endearing tone, excoriated us.

Had we ever considered that a lot of the problem was us? What is it that we demand? Don't we realize we are more likely to have a higher education and thus, may earn more? Why, in this day and age, were we looking for someone to take care of us? (none of us had said that!) Why would a man keep coming to a house (or, more importantly in his estimation, I believe) a church where he felt he wasn't needed? Did we second guess all their decisions? Did we berate and browbeat them if they made mistakes? Did we control everything, thereby (once again) preventing him from being a man? And on and on.

Our responses to this conference, left all of us with a bad taste. You see, having been reared in the church, we didn't dare disrespect Rev. But our polite refutations did not sway him. "Pray," he advised, "that you learn to let go of some things. That you learn the role you are to fill."

And that was it. For me, this is increasingly a problem with my church experience. How can I happily go to a place where I am repeatedly told that, by simply being myself, I am preventing someone, potentially a someone I care much about, from self-actualizing? Where I am cast as a burden on the notion of black manhood? Where black womanhood and manhood are so narrowly defined, and defined in terms that don't correlate with our historical experiences? Where I am told that being who I am has disastrous effects on black homes, black churches, black communities? Where I have to contend with the idea that black women "run off" black men--something that is particularly troublesome for me because 1) it assumes that if a black man does not live in the home with a woman and her child(ren), he is fully absent, not emotionally or financially responsible which, for the millionth time, is not always true 2) it assumes that a man willing to run out on his familial and communal obligations is prompted mainly by a "controlling" woman. Hello--any guy who does that lowdown mess most likely has serious internal, not external, issues.

At the same time that I cannot imagine going to such a hostile place, I cannot imagine leaving black Baptist churches. It makes me a hypocrite, in a sense, a role with which I am increasingly uncomfortable.

On Religion

Quaker Agitator: The final post.

A few days ago, Quaker Dave considered giving up blogging because:

the Left wing of the "blogosphere," the folks who call themselves tolerant and open-minded and "progressive" - some of them - are amongst the most abusive, intolerant folks I have ever dealt with. Patronizing, sneering, dismissive, smirking, condescending, mean-spirited, insulting. I'm tired of it.And when does this happen? Whenever I mention God or my faith.

Ohhhh, he's so right. Now, I haven't caught that much flak in the blogosphere, but that's because I purposely don't write much about religion. I know the eyerolls I get from some of my more secular friends.

Real life is another story. I have a dear friend who often laments that it's too bad that I've been brainwashed. I'm continually surprised by the people who smirk or give me a gentle, sympathetic look when they find out I'm Christian. And to be a "practicing" Christian in the academy? I get the feeling that some people are thinking I should know better!! I think the assumption, in my case, is that because my parents (and especially my mom) are devout and brought us up in the church, I've never taken the time to question anything, to reason and think analytically, to consider how and why and where.

But my faith is not inherited. And the one thing I will say is that my life has been too extraordinarily blessed, that I have survived too many situations, that I have triumphed way too many times for me to think in terms of luck and coincidence. Not to get too Baptist on y'all, but when I think about what He's brought me from and through...

Don't get me wrong--I poke as much fun at Christian fanatics as anyone. And I think I'm pretty vocal about how I feel about the hijacking of Christianity by conservative Republicans and the "Jesus or Hell" crew. But just as Christianity doesn't equal Republican (or mentally ill or vapid or whatever), progressive doesn't equal secularist.

For people who call ourselves progressives, I think we need a closer examination of our own politics of exclusion.

Right Wing Decisions

So, in the minutes before class starts, I'm looking through some blogs and I see Nick Anderson's lovely cartoon showing Ann Richards arriving in heaven. Didn't take long before one commenter noted: Ann Richards wont' be going to heaven Mr. Anderson. She supported both abortion and homosexuality.

As if it wasn't bad enough that people like this have stolen the country, hijacked my religion, and label themselves persecuted...

Now, they're deciding who gets into heaven?

Damn, I'm in trouble!

Nice Things to Read on a Sunday Morning...

...especially when they come from an article discussing how the pastor of a megachurch is refusing to make "Christian" and "Republican" synonyms:

The requests came from church members and visitors alike: Would he please announce a rally against gay marriage during services? Would he introduce a politician from the pulpit? Could members set up a table in the lobby promoting their anti-abortion work? Would the church distribute “voters’ guides” that all but endorsed Republican candidates? And with the country at war, please couldn’t the church hang an American flag in the sanctuary?
After refusing each time, Mr. Boyd finally became fed up, he said. Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.
“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

Mr. Boyd subsequently lost 20% of his congregation. But, he was voicing

"A common concern... that the Christian message is being compromised by the tendency to tie evangelical Christianity to the Republican Party and American nationalism, especially through the war in Iraq."

Mmm. Amen to that, preacher! And,

"Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others -- by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars."

I love this point. Why? Because in the brouhaha over the true "nature" of Judas Iscariot at my church, when some people try to suggest that he was just a fallible, weak human being, many more-conservative members say he was a vindictive soul, angry at Jesus for not setting up a wealthy, worldly kingdom. Now, if Judas was wrong for that 2000 years ago, why has that become the mission of far right Christians these days?

And, dear to my own heart, he seems to know a little history:

"America wasn’t founded as a theocracy,” he said. “America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn’t bloody and barbaric. That’s why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state. I am sorry to tell you,” he continued, “that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world."

This man even addresses the Christian persecution syndrome:

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

A veritable "Hallelujah" seems in order.

Christianity

Things I Hate

Christian themed e-mails that include the following guilt trips:

1. If you don't have the time to read and forward this, don't be surprised when God doesn't have time for you.

2. Why can't you forward this? If it was nasty or dirty, you'd do so without thinking!

3. When becoming a Christian, you accepted the duty of spreading the word and bringing more people into the kingdom. If you don't forward this e-mail, you will have failed abysmally at that task.

And finally...

4. If you are a real Christian...