The Seedbed

(h/t Sarah Posner at Religion Dispatches

The Islamic Society of North America today held an “emergency meeting” of top faith leaders, to address the “recent surge in anti-Muslim rhetoric and Islamophobia.”

Posner reports:

A number of religious leaders, including [ISNA president Ingrid] Mattson, spoke at the press briefing, which was one of the most highly attended press events relating to religion that I’ve seen — except for events hosted by religious right groups. Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, speaking to evangelical Christians engaging in or promoting anti-Muslim bigotry, said, “Shame on you . . . as an evangelical I say you bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ.”

Many speakers, including Cizik, chided unnamed purveyors of anti-Muslim fervor as antagonists of the First Amendment. Richard Killmer of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture called it “a blight on America’s spirit and soul.” Several, including Cizik and Dr. Roy Medley, General Secretary of the American Baptist Churches, noted how their own traditions thrived from the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, a freedom they said people in their own faith traditions now seek to trample for Muslims.

Brian Bantum – someone I actually know IRL – is the winner of the $10 Sock Dreams gift certificate. What’s kind of nice is that he posted his comment before I decided to make any sort of drawing/promotion out of it. Now, having said that, I don’t know his feelings on socks.

Do you want seven clusters of religion-themed links for your (if you’re in the US) Labor Day weekend? Nonsense. Of course you do:

1. “You want to bet my future with that condom?” (via William Wan at WaPo) Evidently Focus on the Family is willing to stay mum about religion if it means they get to shame Chinese women for being sexual.

Provincial leaders told Dobson during their visit that they admired his strong stances on everything – marriage, parenting, gender issues, the sanctity of life. The only thing they disagreed with was evangelism…. To work in China, however, Focus on the Family has had to make a pledge of its own: no politically sensitive material, and no religion. The evangelical group says it’s strictly abiding by those terms.

More by Tracy Clark-Flory at Broadsheet.. Also, the Guardian gives snippets of the curriculum’s role-play which (surprise!) has boys as the sexual pursuers and girls as the intended naysayers. Pfhoo…. can you imagine how bad it might be if the curriculum contained some sort of politically sensitive material, rather than simply advocating a particular agenda on “marriage, parenting, gender issues, the sanctity of life”? I don’t even want to contemplate it.

2. “[T]he god who would reward cowardice and dishonesty and punish irreconcilable doubt is among the many gods in which (whom?) I do not believe.” In Vanity Fair, Christopher Hitchens’ thoughtful and not-all-that-snotty reply to those praying for him, including those praying for his death-as-smiting. As you might expect, I am not a Hitchens booster generally, but this is one of the best reflections on death I’ve ever read.

3. A new way to deal with mobile phones in church. An episcopal priest in Halifax is blessing her congregation’s electronic gadgets. (via Episcopalcafe) This kind of religion news story usually gets whatever traction it gets because we’re meant to shake our heads and sputter with cognitive dissonance: “Church?! Ritual?! Smartphones?! Oh, this modern world we live in! I need a cool compress, my blankie, a scotch, and a lie-down!” To me, though, it recalled a memory from when I was member of a pacifist Christian anarchist community. On the doors of the shed where we kept the gardening and maintenance tools was written “The tools of the community shall be treated as the vessels of the altar. -The Rule of St. Benedict.” (Which, upon googling, seems comparable enough to what other English translations have: See Rule of St. Benedict 31:10, here.) Today, for many, smart phones and the internet are tools of community. It’s fascinating to me, how religions and faith communities begin to recognize – or decide to refuse entry to – these tools in their ritual life.

4. We have met the religious outlier, and it is us. Check out this chart by NYT’s Charles Blow. In the world generally, religiosity is highly correlated with poverty. Not so in the United States, as you can see.

Also, although Blow doesn’t focus on this, I notice that the United States is unique in having non-Catholic Christianity enjoy this sort of prominence. Aha, but: The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey suggests that the U.S. is slowly becoming less Christian, with 86% of Americans self-identifying as Christians in 1990 and 76% identifying themselves as Christians in 2008… although it gets tremendously complicated (and incredibly interesting, if you’re a nerd like me) when you break it down according to ethnicity and variety of Christianity.

(Quick rundown: While many of the historic denominations such as United Methodism experienced decline, some more idiosyncratic varieties of Christianity — like Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses — had increases. So, too, did the very un-idiosyncratic “nondenominational generic” variety of Christianity, for which there has been an uptick since 2001. Meanwhile Catholicism has maintained its large share mostly thanks to an influx of Latin@s into the U.S… even though Latin@s are still becoming less religious over time, like the rest of the population. Got all that?)

Overall, though, it’s not other religions who are claiming ex-Christian defectors: it’s the “Nones,” those who identify as having no religion. Which may suggest that the United States is becoming less of an outlier.

5. Don’t worry, it looks like my dismissiveness toward Glenn Beck is not catching. Remember the other day, when I pleaded with theo-blogy to stop treating Glenn Beck seriously? And smart commenters were all, “Uh, Sarah? Maybe you noticed this dude is dangerous?” And I was all, “Right. Um. Right. Okay, let me explain. I didn’t mean dismiss him outright. I meant let’s stop acting like he’s an intellectually honest person whose God-blurts are done in good faith, and let’s start treating him like the mendacious disaster that he is!”? Well, I think I may have lost that one. In any case, to show I’m a gracious loser, here are three different theological engagements with Glenn Beck, two from the religious right and one from the religious left.

(And to anticipate a possible objection: I know some believe Jim Wallis to be beyond such left/right characterizations. He’s an evangelical! And a democrat! “You got a donkey in my social justice!”/”You got social justice in my donkey!” Well, so say many smart people. Me, I increasingly see a man who is all about promoting and branding himself as Democrats’ answer to the “buncha godless thus-and-suches!” charge from the right. And who is not half as progressive as most of the people whom I know who cite him favorably. Which is his prerogative, of course, and people gotta eat. But when it comes to a leader who will reinvigorate the left… well, I take comfort in the fact that there are a few of us whose Wallis Wannabes team jerseys are packed up in the attic with high school debate trophies and the cassette soundtrack to Aspects of Love.)

6. Hinduism Trendspotter Pieces Coming Soon To A Media Outlet Near You: ReligionLink is a story idea resource for religion reporters. Their “Hindu chic” analysis includes plenty of information for the religion reporter wanting to cover the Nice White Lady cooptation angle. So if you see a “Hindu chic” trendspotting piece that includes no such analysis, be advised that they are likely without excuse.

7. This makes me feel so competent.

Oh, hello, internet. Remember me? Remember that night, when we sat on your porch looking at the stars and listening to the cicadas, the nervous energy and romantic frisson causing us both to laugh a little too hard about things that weren’t all that funny? And remember how I cupped your face tenderly in my hands, looked lovingly into your eyes, yammered on about vaguely religious-themed topics to you, promised to call… and then weeks went by?

Have you left me for another, my dear? I can’t say I’d blame you. What can I possibly say to make up for it? Shall I explain that my husband and older son went on a European vacation for ten days and left me with the 2yo? And that I’ve been facing my dissertation, course prep for the new semester, and a lingering cold? As I write it all out like that, it seems so flimsy.

Well, you think about it, internet. I’ll blog while you ponder. Because, like the saying goes: if you love the internet, set it free! If you come back, you’re mine; if you don’t, you never were. (Or else you have appropriate boundaries and don’t like being jerked around by a flaky blogger. Maybe they’re the same thing.)

(Seriously, sorry for the long absence.)

First thing: Enough people have said smart stuff about the Ground Zero Falsely So-Called Mosque Falsely So-Called, that I don’t think I have a lot to add. Do you have a good link to share, though? By all means, do so.

Second thing: So, theological education. This might be one of those inside baseball topics, but I’ve been thinking about it a lot and am curious what smart internet friends have to say.

I think you know I teach at a seminary affiliated with the Disciples of Christ denomination. Here’s a little history lesson, and a contemporary problem, that I frankly find fascinating: Seminaries used to be places that young men would go to for a few years, to study how to interpret the Bible (because this knowledge wasn’t generally available elsewhere), at the end of which time they would have a credential (a Master of Divinity, say) that allowed them to be ordained by their denominations (e.g. Disciples of Christ) to go serve as the pastor of a church (an occupation for which there were ample openings that paid a living wage).

No longer. Seriously, every single clause in that paragraph has completely changed. People often go into the ministry as a second or a third career. Higher education is one of those information industries thrown into flux by the new economy; its role as official disseminator of information, skill sets, and credentials has been challenged now that information is more available and skill-building more entrepreneurial. Denominations? The doctrinal and organizational factors that historically made Presbyterians different from Methodists have less and less traction (and mind you, I’m not complaining about this; but inasmuch as seminaries’ donor bases come from denominations, it affects theological education.) There aren’t nearly the jobs for “ministers,” if what you mean by that is “person paid to be in charge of this particular congregation that meets in this particular building.” The jobs there are often don’t pay a living wage. And of course, women are going into ordained ministry in greater proportions (which is not to say that they always find accepting congregations on the other end).

To say nothing of the fact that the “train the trainer” model has not proven sufficient for (at least) theology of even the most lukewarmly “tolerant” variety. By that I mean that giving the clergy a theological education, in the hopes that they would go back and educate their churches, has not gotten the job done. All too often it means that seminary graduates know (for example) that the Bible is a historical and very complicated document, but are scared to preach it that way because they fear how the people in their congregations — who they have to keep happy while living on ramen and possibly not having health benefits — will react.

This is one of the things my colleagues and I have been talking about at our recent faculty retreat. Everything about theological education as we’ve ever known it is in the midst of this massive, massive upheaval. I suppose I should fear for my career prospects and earning potential — and sometimes I do — but I can’t help seeing in this a tremendous opportunity. This is the time to be entrepreneurial, to re-invent theological education: make it more socially just, more widely available, and less hierarchical. (And, I would say, more -ism-dismantling and privilege-aware. MUCH more.)

Internet? Your thoughts? What would this look like? The model I keep rolling around on my braintongue is (in shorthand) “the “the Etsy of theological education.”

Third thing: Our favorite dim sum place has moved from waaaay across town to a mile from our house. Also, the nasty heat wave has broken. For the record, I approve of these changes.

(because I’d hate to seem biased.)

Dear Sisters in Christ,

First, what you have to understand is that husband and wife are equal. EQUAL EQUAL EQUAL. You ask me: are the husband and wife equal? Yes they are, is the answer. If the husband’s worth, say, five dollars… what’s the wife worth? Five dollars. Five very equal dollars. Pay no heed to the fact that those dollars are held in her husband’s name in her husband’s bank account! The point is, five is the same number as five. If the husband is an armoire, is the wife a bedside table? She is not. She is also an armoire. She is, in fact, Mrs. Armoire! And if the husband is a head, then the wi… [coughing fit] LOOK A BIRD! Anyhow, the husband and wife are so EQUAL that if they were any MORE EQUAL they’d be forcibly shaken out of packets of blue paper and sprinkled onto breakfast cereal in 1989. God is awesome!

Now, here’s the thing: even though husband and wife are EQUAL EQUAL EQUAL EQUAL, the husband-wife RELATIONSHIP models a RELATIONSHIP between two parties we must insist are wildly unequal: God and creation. So wives are still equal; it’s just that they’re inferior IN THE RELATIONSHIP.

Look, think of it as a play you’re in, ladies. A play that you can never take a break from; that we didn’t ask you if you wanted to be in; that builds men up at women’s expense; and that is basically coterminous with that thing you call ‘your life.’ It’s like if you found yourself in ‘Cats.’ You wouldn’t really BE a cat, ha ha ha!! You’re just modeling a certain kind of JELLICLE CAT RELATIONSHIP. All the time, forever. And it has to be forever because, mercy, think of what might happen if the actors let on that this was all a performance!

In Christian Love,
Us.

PS – Equal.

1. Get all the powerful men in your entirely male-run organization together.
2. Decide to more or less ignore the women who’ve been saying, “Hey! You don’t respect us as a class, and here’s why, and here’s what it’s like for us as a result. OUR EXPERIENCES. WE ARE SHARING THEM. WITH YOU. RIGHT NOW. EARTH TO ROME, DO YOU READ?”
3. Instead just state that you DO respect women. Because just saying the words totally makes it so, even if all outward appearances suggest otherwise.
4. If they keep talking, say “YUH-HUH!” (preferably in Latin).
5. Congratulate yourself on proving you respect women by ignoring all the women who claim you don’t respect women.

And you think YOU work with great people. A few days ago I asked my colleague Dennis Smith, the LaDonna Kramer Meinders Professor of New Testament, if I could interview him for my blog. He’s too nice to say it or think it, but this is below his pay grade, people. He’s big time. He gets invited places where they give him fat honoraria to speak (er… I mean, I assume); and even though all I could offer was homemade blueberry pie and gratitude, he still agreed to be interviewed here and even hang around and answer questions as he’s able.

(He incidentally is married to Barbara McBride-Smith a storyteller who is enough of a big deal that she has her own Wikipedia entry. (She’s also lovely and nice and awesome.) Not surprisingly their son Adam McBride-Smith got the awesomeness genes, and he’s a singer-songwriter living in Paris and performing as one half of Half Seas Over whose album, by the by, I have on iTunes. All that is just to say, if by chance this blog is being followed by the person in the government whose job it is to designate who gets to ride on the escape pod to Mars when we’ve finally ruined the planet beyond all hope: The McBride-Smiths are people whose DNA you want, clearly.)

SARAH: I was hoping we could have a conversation about a Matthew 6:2-8. One of the things I’ve been blogging about lately is sanctimony from religious people, even on the Christian left (which is of course the people I know best, inasmuch as those are my people). I suppose I’d like to invite you, first, just to talk about the passage and whatever features you might like to talk about. I’ll roll with it, and ask follow-up questions.

DENNIS:
My first thought when I looked up the text you had chosen was: Oh, no! Why such a smarmy text as this? It sounds so pietistically sweet, almost a reverse hypocritical text. You could read it as, “don’t pray big bombastic prayers like the hypocrites, but instead pray in private — but pray for the same thing. The main thing is to keep it to yourself, and in so doing you can be really smug about it.” It’s all about appearance, not about content. Or at least that is what the text seems to be saying on the surface. Ugh! I had to dig myself out of that interpretation (you know, like digging through the pile looking for the pony?) and remind myself I am a scholar, by gum! I needed to look at it from another perspective. Interested?

SARAH:
Oh goodness, yes! “Interested” doesn’t even begin to get at it!

I also love how you put it: “The main thing is to keep it to yourself, and in so doing you can really be smug about it.”

That remark – and actually, this passage – reminds me of a conversation I had last night with a Facebook friend about a particular… well, genre, I guess it would be… of testimonial that I’ve seen in some modern liberal churches .

It goes like this: Someone has returned from visiting a country in the global south where s/he was doing relief work. In giving the presentation about hir work, s/he relates an anecdote about how s/he was invited over for dinner by a family who had so little. Long, lingering descriptions follow of the paltriness of this family’s resources. And yet! The family killed one of their few chickens (or, sometimes, maybe it’s a goat) to show that s/he (the relief worker) is an honored guest.

And it just builds and builds, rhetorically… How HARD it was for such a RICH PERSON as hirself to accept this gift, yet SOMEHOW (pause for effect) s/he was able to FIND IT WITHIN hirself to just eat the dinner.

And I always want to say: “Okay, but… then you came back and gave a long speech drawing attention to how gracious it was for YOU to accept their chicken. I mean, really, if I were your host, I’d be thinking, Look, just eat the chicken, wouldja? My point was to welcome you, not to get one of the leading roles in your own little morality play/personal crisis over here.”

I hope that wasn’t too much of a tangent. Anyway, I guess that brings us around to what you said: possible interpretations, and new interpretations. Um… are there any?

(And with that, my 2yo has managed to injure himself on the sofa. Take it, Dennis!)

DENNIS:
Yes, I like your parallel story. Because my second look at this text (after digging out of the layers and layers of piety) suggested I should title it: “It’s not all about you, dude!”

One of the basic rules of scholarly interpretation is “context, context, context.” When we take it out of context, we give it a surface reading and conclude that Matthew 6:2-8 is all about being more humble than thou. But notice how that reading is still self-centered.

One aspect of the context has to do with Matthew’s larger purpose, his overall themes and goals. I would suggest he had bigger fish to fry than simply promoting humility. One way to get at that is to notice the immediate context:

a) 6:1 introduces our text by setting forth the theme: “Don’t practice your piety for the purpose of making a big impression on others.” In other words, there is a larger and more important focus for “piety” than making oneself look more religious to others (aka self-centered religion).

b) 6:9-13 clarifies where the focus should be with the text we call “the Lord’s prayer.” But we have to read that prayer differently than we do customarily. Because we usually read it as a prayer about oneself (all about me and my needs). That is not what I think it is about.

Is this making any sense so far? If so, I will explain my reading of “the Lord’s prayer.” But be sure and tell me if I am getting too dense.

SARAH:
Oh, no, please go on! I can hardly even read the Lord’s Prayer without going into singsong Sunday School mode.

(Also – sorry for my delay in replying. I had to run to Reasors for a chicken.)

DENNIS:

(I hope you got the chicken. I amused myself by writing my next section in Word.)

So here is my next point. After the theme introduced earlier –”It’s not all about you,” — the next theme is: “Get with the program.” I think “the Lord’s prayer” sets forth “the program.” Here’s how I think that works:

In the Greek, which is the original language of Matthew, the prayer is nicely balanced in an ancient style that we call “chiasm.” This is a style in which a series of statements is then repeated in reverse order using different words, diagrammed as statement a, statement b, statement c; followed by statement c’ (paralleling “c”), statement b’, and statement a’.

(I hope I have not lost you yet, because this is really good stuff!)

When there is a statement “d” without a parallel, then it gives emphasis to that middle statement.

Here is how the prayer comes out according to that pattern (using my own translation):

Father in heaven:
a) May your name be sanctified --
   b) May your kingdom (or rule) come to be -
      c) May your will be done -
         d) As in heaven, so also on earth.
      c') Give us today the bread necessary for existence.
   b') Forgive our debts, in the same manner as we forgive our debtors.
a') Let us not wander into the realm of temptation - protect us from the evil one. 

Here is my interpretation:

1) In heaven, where God is,
      a) the holy name (which signifies the full power of the divine) is always kept holy;
      b) the rule of God is fully present;
      c) the will of God is fully followed.
2) The prayer is a request that the values of heaven so summarized be present on earth:
      a) where God's name is kept holy - there the evil one is kept at bay.
      b) where God's rule is present - there is where debts are all erased
[note: debt represents here a social schism between the haves and the have-nots].
      c) where God's will is done - there is where there will always be sufficient food for everyone.
3) Conclusion: it is not a prayer for "me and my needs" - it is a prayer for the renewal of the earth.

It fits the overall theme of the Sermon on the Mount, which begins with “You are the salt of the earth – You are the light of the world” and concludes with “you cannot serve God and mammon – seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness and you will have sufficient for all your needs (that is, where the kingdom of God is, there is the realm where all are cared for).”

Whew! Maybe this is too much. Does this sound like too much scholarly jargon? (PS I don’t know why my font changed — I do not mean to yell!)

SARAH: [changing font so Dennis is no longer yelling, which is hard for her to imagine happening]

So, if I understand you correctly, what I’ve learned to recite as “The Lord’s Prayer” is not actually a script, dictated by Jesus, that was given out with instructions to recite it JUST LIKE THIS so as to personally appease your Sky Daddy so that you can be a Good Person… unlike those yucky-bad-wrong people over there.

But, rather, it’s more like Jesus is narrated as saying “Hey, so you want to pray? Awesome. Here’s what you should be praying will happen. Pray that earth will be more like heaven — where God’s name is kept holy, where everyone has enough, and where everyone is reconciled. And here’s what you shouldn’t care about: Whether enough people are paying attention to how holy YOU are.

DENNIS:
You got it! It is so encouraging, and so rare, when my eggheady, convoluted musings actually appear to be understandable to someone else!

Another way to say it by the way is to interpret the Lord’s prayer in terms of other sayings in the Sermon on the Mount, such as: “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light” (6:22). This fits, in a subversive kind of way, with 6:3, “But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.” That is to say, it should be second nature – the prayer is something more to be lived than to be repeated in a rote form.

SARAH:
As a last wrap-up I’d like to ask you to speculate about how/why this might matter (if at all) to three different hypothetical people:

For starters, how about the Christian who was taught, and currently believes, that the Lord’s Prayer is in fact a script directly handed down by Jesus, whose value lies in its capacity to make Holy Individuals, as opposed to Bad Individuals?

DENNIS:
First of all, the prayer is in the plural, not the singular (much of the rest of the sermon on the mount is in the plural also; Greek has a plural “you” whereas English does not, unless you use the southern “y’all.”). So it is about us, not about me. But in any case, perhaps the real point worth debating is what a holy individual looks like.

SARAH: How about the person who is not Christian and may have consciously rejected Christianity, but who has interactions with Christians which s/he does not always care for. In fact let’s say that this person is deeply, deeply skeptical of anything that even smacks of there being a Big Guy In The Sky?

DENNIS
If the Big Guy in the Sky is a Judgmental, angry God – then I am with you there. I like to think more of a God who is with the little people here. Matthew has a good text there again, “Where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, I am there in their midst” (18:20). If you interpret in my name according to the “Lord’s prayer” as we interpreted it above, it means “wherever people are reconciling and taking care of one another, then that is where I like to hang out as well.” God is in, or is to be equated with, the goodness of people, so to speak – we don’t have to be dogmatic about it.

SARAH
Okay, how about “my people” — the Christian left, who pride themselves on not being the religious right, occasionally with a real emphasis on the “pride” part. Because sanctimony is certainly not the special cottage industry of the religious right. We Sojourners-reading mainliners can fall into it as well.

DENNIS:
(Careful there – those are my people, too!)
Well, I guess “pride” gets back to individualism and “all about me.” It sometimes seems to go contrary to our raisin’ as good ‘mericans, but the emphasis here is on community, not on the individual. On the other hand, I still believe that strong-willed activism on behalf of the larger good is sometimes called for and should not be labeled as “pride.”

This has been fun, Sarah! Thanks for including me in this conversation!

SARAH: Thank YOU, Dennis, for reporting from your undisclosed location somewhere in Sabbatical Land. It’s awfully generous of you. You really classed up the joint! Dennis said he’ll make time to answer questions in the comments as he’s able. If you’ll excuse me I’m going to go bake him a pie to express my gratitude.

When I was blogging under a pseudonym I did not have to do certain calculations, ask certain questions. Questions like, “Will this reflect poorly on me professionally?” If I came across something particularly enraging, for example, I could let fly with whatever – ahem – strongly worded, energetic, expressive prose might come to mind.

Not so here. So I shall try to be measured! And reasonable! Sober, and thoughtful, and professional. I shall use my polite words. I shall even try to use my inside voice.

This? Is vile, hateful, sanctimonious, and bigoted.

Oh, but let’s all watch as the mulm floats slowly, slowly to the bottom of the tank, shall we?

Today, I had lunch with a friend at Old Country Buffet. I ate more than I needed to, but less than I could have, resulting in a satisfied, not bloated sensation. As I negotiated my way back and forth between the food bars and my seat, I noted the morbidly obese appearance of some of the other patrons. And I thought about gluttony.

“I was at a restaurant! Eating! As one does, in a restaurant! And there were other people in there too, who were also eating the same buffet as I was! The difference, though, was that THEY have ICKY BODIES, as defined by me. Ergo, I’m allowed to go to Old Country Buffet and eat to fullness, but not they! If they eat in public, they may EAT ONLY SALAD. And don’t even THINK I won’t be checking, yo. I will be coming around with my salad inspector goggles, Missys and Misters! For I have no bloated feeling, and this keeps me light on my feet and ready for action!”

To quote the ever-quotable Snarky’s Machine: “Ab dab dab [holds up hand] Stop right there.” Dude, seriously? I mean, like, you say that out loud and everything? ‘Kay, well, couple things.

First, I’m not sure if you noticed, but… um, you seem to be under the misapprehension that people’s bodies in public spaces are any of your beeswax? Ha ha! Easy mistake, but even easier to clear up. If you can’t even manage to go to a restaurant without leering at the other patrons’ bodies and musing about your own moral superiority, the problem is with you. All better? Awesome.

Now, onto a subsidiary point: I must confess I’m a little confused about the precise nature of your sanctimony. Is it that you think you’re owed an experience of public space in which there’s nobody who strikes you as icky, inferior, or off-putting? (In which case, why stop at fat people? That’s so mainstream, Mr. Organic Fruits and Vegetables. STEP IT UP. For there is a long and proud history in this country of childishly insisting, in the name of rugged individualism, that one should never have to spend thirty seconds being decent to someone who does not meet one’s own moral or aesthetic or socioeconomic or cultural standards. Why not insist that you’re also owed a 24/7 experience of good-smelling able-bodied adults with good morals and proper grammar, who laugh at all your jokes, catch all your cultural references, and basically only do things that you personally like? Old Spice Guy! Only the Old Spice Guy is now allowed at the Old Country Buffet. Well, him, and this Mennonite farmer. BUT THAT’S IT.)

Or is it actually quite the opposite: do you in fact rely on there being plenty of icky, inferior, off-putting people around as foils for your own la-la-la-happy-wholesome-square-dance-good-good-goody-goodness? Is it actually the case that, if there weren’t a bunch of moral reprobates around to feel superior to, you wouldn’t have any idea what to do with yourself?

I ask because, see, there’s also this bit:

I always feel uneasy eating at a buffet-style restaurant. Their very existence seems an invitation to gluttony—both in personal diet and in wasteful consumption of natural resources. But then, one could say the same thing of bars. Their very existence tends to enable the alcoholism of a portion of their customer base. The fact of the matter is that people who lack self control are often enabled in their addictions by buffets and bars. But at least bars often have a policy of not serving obviously inebriated people. Buffets will let you eat until you explode.

Okay, but… SURELY you must be aware that buffet patronage is NOT ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAW. You need not go to a buffet! No one will force you! God bless America! In fact, you need not go to any commercial establishment that reliably makes you feel uneasy! I know this because there are commercial establishments which make me uneasy, and what I do is, I try to avoid going in them if I can. It’s a really good system.

I mean, true, if it’s a deal where your whole family has a standing tradition of going to Old Country Buffet, and you said “I can’t go anymore because the strangers’ bodies whom I leer at just MAKE ME SO UNEASY. And also there is just SO MUCH FOOD available that I’m scared somebody might go in there and devour the world!”… well, yeah, there might be some social costs. But there are often social costs to setting boundaries and making choices based on what we like and feel comfortable with.

And yet you persist, evidently, going into Old Country Buffet to leer at the gluttonous sinners. Because… you don’t hear them condemned enough at church! Oh, indeed, churches should really get more into the business of condemning and shaming groups of bad people.

As I contemplated the commonplace nature of obesity in South Central PA, and its prevalence among Christians and non-Christians alike, I remembered something about gluttony being one of the seven deadly sins. And then it hit me like a T-bone steak through my TV screen—that’s right up there with lust on the list of deadly sins. Here we were, slothfully chowing away in the richest nation in the world, in a mall a few doors down from Excitement Video, where we could later amble over to engage in yet another deadly sin if we so desired. But only one of those deadly sins would get us in any trouble at church.

Some questions:
1. Why does a Mennonite invest any special importance in the seven deadly sins?
2. What’s with the steak in your TV set?
3. Have you considered a career giving moral depravity tours? I mean, you know, people could pay you and then you could take them around in a tram and show them all the horrid folks who are doing things not precisely in the manner that you like. This seems to be an interest of yours; why not monetize it?
4. On what planet do you spend most of your time, that you do not hear fat people getting condemned enough, and you don’t find food to be enough of a proving ground for moral purity? Food is the new sex: a realm wherein, by exercising the TIGHTEST POSSIBLE CONTROL, even if necessary subsuming your entire life and all your relationships to this need for control in this ONE AREA, you can turn out to have been Good and Pure and Good Good Good. Of course, you may entirely forget, in the process, to actually care about other human beings… but meh to them, right?

All of that brings me to a reiteration: This blog is a fat-positive space. You don’t have to believe as I do, but neither am I required to provide a forum for any comment that says anything like “Ew, fat!!!” or “Ew, MY fat!!!” or “Health health health and also ew fat!!!”

Fatphobia is, among other things, a socially acceptable way for certain well-off crunchy fauxgressive white people (though not only them, of course) to be classist, sexist, racist, and ableist.

Also, no matter the collective snit we may whip ourselves into about the Obesity Epipanic, the fact remains: there is STILL no good and demonstrated and reliable and safe way to turn fat people into thin people, any more than there’s a good and demonstrated and reliable and safe way to turn thin people into fat people. AND EVEN IF THERE WERE, you STILL DO NOT GET TO LEER AT OTHER PEOPLE’S BODIES, SAY “EW,” AND THEN CONGRATULATE YOURSELF FOR YOUR HIGH MORALS. Other people, in public spaces, are not your foils, and nobody’s wronging you by being fat at you.

And if you whine about having to pay more because of the health risks associated with obesity… well, take a good long look in the mirror there, bub. Do you go skiing? Do you run marathons? Do you not get enough sleep? Are you male? Tsk tsk, don’t you know there are INCREASED HEALTH RISKS associated with all those things? Why do you hate public health, you selfish egomaniac?

Well, I mostly used my inside voice.