The Secret Ingredient: The Source of the Savory Suggestions

by Secular Spice

Random internet people make blogs. Joe Nobody says "do this," Suzie Someone says "say that." Rarely do we learn who these folks are or why we should care about their opinions. Along comes a new blog, Secular Spice, published as a column on DangerousTalk.net, the site affiliated with a Philadelphia-based radio show about free speech, freethought, and freedom of the press. Secular Spice makes some bold statements and asserts authority in such areas as atheist activism, abortion rights, secularism, and sex. But who is Secular Spice, and why should you listen to me?

The time has come to reveal Secular Spice's secret ingredient. My name is Janice Rael, and I was saved by atheism, transformed from solitary suburbanite to seasoned secular activist. I went from grassroots activism in my youth to a quiet life as a young adult, raising my family and dealing with personal matters. But the events of September 11, 2001 changed America, and changed me, too. I was watching when a plane sliced through a skyscraper like a hot knife through warm butter. I couldn't believe it. The 9/11 attack shook me from my small-town slumber. America's religious reaction stunned me. I later learned that I was not the only nonbeliever who was awoken as a result of the attacks on the Twin Towers.

But I should start from the beginning. I had a tumultuous childhood, deconverting from Christianity at age 18 after learning about other religions, and the history of how books were translated through the years. While in college in the 1980s, I got my start in activism, working on AIDS awareness and abortion access, and other causes. When I came home to New Jersey, I came out of the closet, and as a bisexual woman, I got involved in GLBT (Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Transgender) rights and visibility. I marched on Washington DC and New York City more times than I can remember, and I volunteered as an abortion clinic escort during the Operation Rescue days, when busloads of anti-choice protestors blockaded women's clinics. I was fighting the Religious Right, but considered myself to be an agnostic, and wasn't concerned about atheist issues.

Meeting the man who I eventually married led me to a pivotal change in how I identified my lack of belief. Before I met him, I was misinformed about atheism. I had exchanged correspondence with a person who had advertised a freethought group in the back of a magazine, but I'd always thought that being an atheist meant that I had to disprove the existence of God. My future husband explained to me that atheism was simply an absence of theism, and if I didn't actually believe in God, I was really an atheist. We settled down together. Marriage and motherhood made me move my mental goalposts, as I focused on my family, and forgot about my former front-lines activism.

I had other things on my mind, too. Trying to deal with my past, I sought counseling, but was unable to find a secular solution to my problems. After September 11th, I sought solace on the internet, searching for other atheists like me. When I first found online atheist communities, I was thrilled to make friends with other nonbelievers. Thinking about a way to impress my new friends and have fun in the chats, I remarked to my husband that "EverLastingGodStopper" would be a funny nickname. He thought it was hilarious, so I began chatting with this new, secret identity.

During one chat in Spring 2002, a preacher challenged me, saying, "You can't stop God! You don't stop anything! All you do is sit here in this chat room and complain." I was reminded of my former activism, fighting the Religious Right. Determined to prove the preacher wrong, I got involved with atheist and church-state activism, but soon learned that I wouldn't have any credibility if I hid behind an internet nickname. So I shed my fears, and told people who I was. My newfound concentration on atheist community and church-state separation gave my life new meaning. I started working with real-world organizations as well as online communities. Now, I've spent nearly 5 years as a volunteer for such groups as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Internet Infidels, the Atheist Alliance International, and others.

In April 2006, Staks Rosch, the host of the Dangerous Talk radio show, founder of DangerousTalk.net, and fellow activist in the Philadelphia area, invited me to write a column for his website. He wanted me to be a bit more edgy than I usually am, so created the Secular Spice column as a side project, trying to keep my identity a secret so I could rant and rave. Staks once teased me on the air about my anonymity. But he understood that I was trying to launch this column on its own, to see if it would stand or fall without any support from my popular online persona or my real-life activism.

But once again, I must discard my disguise, so I can freely share more information about important issues. Secular Spice was intended to be my secret persona, just as EverLastingGodStopper was intended to hide my identity when I visited atheist chat rooms. But the real me shines through, and the secret ingredient is a secret no more.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2007/01/secular-spice-secret-ingredient.html

Fantasy and Freethought — Letting your lover's mind travel is no big deal

by Secular Spice

I've seen the question come up on many message boards: is it okay to fantasize about someone else during sex with my partner? And while the prudes gasp and the fundies fret, I give you and your partner two thumbs up.

The mind is my favorite erotic zone; I think it's perfectly normal and acceptable for me or my partner to think about whomever or whatever we want to think about during sex. After all, how would we know otherwise? What sort of control freaks are we that we need to intrude upon our lovers' mental space?

And why would we care? It's just a fantasy. By definition, fantasy is not reality. I want my partner to get off, and if my partner wants or needs to fantasize about other people or other sex acts, that's great! Maybe my partner will share such dirty little ideas with me. Ooh.

I think that worrying about your sex partner's fantasies is rather insecure, and asking your partner to think about only certain things is demanding and petty. And even if one does make this shallow insistence that one's partner not fantasize about other people, how on earth would you ensure that s/he is following your orders?

I'm amazed by the erratic whining from the insecure hausfraus who aren't content with having the starring role, who want to fire the understudy and fill in for the director. This scares me, it smacks of mind control. I don't think people should worry about their partners taking trips down fantasy lane. It's normal and healthy to use your imagination, and not normal or healthy to control another person's thoughts during sex.

I think jealousy is silly. But the jealous think I'm a horrible person for suggesting that it's okay to fantasize about other people during sex.

Confronted by shrieks of abandonment from people who insist that their partners shouldn't think about anyone but them, I did a little research. It turns out that sexual health experts support my position, that fantasy is normal and acceptable. Imagine that! Petty jealousy is bad, and freewheeling freethought is good.

Each relationship is different. I understand people who expect exclusive relationships, but I do not understand the concept of "mind-control monogamy." I've read about it on mostly religious message boards: frantic posts from fearful women who are frustrated that their men read porn, or check out other chicks in the store. I've never really understood it, especially when modern sex therapists explain repeatedly that there is nothing wrong with an active imagination or a simple sexual fantasy.

I just don't think that it is healthy to attempt to control my partner's mind or try to prevent him or her from what he or she may naturally think about. The goal in our sexual encounter is mutual pleasure. Unless it's some sort of consenting BDSM relationship, I do not see how thought control is sexually rewarding to either the controller or to the one whose thoughts are being limited.

And again, how would we know who or what our partners are thinking about when we're having sex? I just don't see how it matters.

I'm a freethinker through-and-through, including in the bedroom. And I expect my partners to be freethinkers, too. I find that our sexual encounters are enhanced by the ability to allow each other the freedom to think as we wish, which, for many people, means the ability to have control over our own sexual fantasies.

I'm inclined to think that telling my partner that his or her mind must not wander during sex is bad manners.

Most people agree with me. They see fantasy's naysayers as hysterical, irrational, and insecure. I've known jealous, possessive, and insecure people in the past. I know how they think. I'm not into that whole "think of me, only me, I'm the only one who can pleasure you" scene. I'm much more into "tell me your hottest, dirtiest, naughtiest fantasy, tell me about your dream encounter with your dream lover, tell me about some hot action you got in college, talk dirty to me baby" stuff.

Different strokes for different folks, of course. I think my views are based in natural biology, on a great understanding of sex and the mind, after plenty of experience with dozens of lovers. Not only am I justified in my opinions, but also, my way sounds sexier than the way of "I am thy Lover, thou shalt not thinkest of any other but me."

Sexual jealousy is rooted in insecurity. Psychologists might consider a demand for extreme fidelity, even mental fidelity, to be indicative of sexual jealousy. Obsessive jealousy is a treatable medical condition.

Loosen up, ladies; let your own minds wander, too. Fantasy is called "fantasy" for a reason: because it's a fantasy.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2006/10/fantasy-and-freethought.html

Waging the War against "White-Collar Porn"

by Secular Spice

Fundamentalists fudge facts and forget the First Amendment

In early August, 2006, several religious-right groups such as Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, Morality in Media, and the American Family Association, joined forces to place an ad in USA today, demanding that the US Department of Justice "investigate" pornography that is made available to hotel patrons, claiming a violation of obscenity laws.

Touting tired old statistics that try to link porn consumption to rape, these anti-sex crusaders invented the term "white-collar pornography," seeking to stop the top providers of in-room adult films, LodgeNet, based in South Dakota, and Denver-based OnCommand, a subsidiary of Liberty Media Corp. from delivering their movies to hotel chains around the country.

Despite the fact that hotel guests can block the movie service, and no one has to view the movies unless they choose to do so, the Campaign for Corporate Responsibility insists that hotel chains should not offer such channels to their guests.

This so-called "white-collar porn" is big business, and the Concerned Women for America are quite upset about it. Their site names communications giants AT&T and MCI as the biggest salesmen of "dial-a-porn," and attempts to shame the hotel chains into getting out of the porn business.

Using language usually reserved to describe terrorists, the anti-porn crusaders asserted, "Pornography is a disease plaguing America's freedom and safety." They called on the US Department of Justice to step in.

Is this really a good use of taxpayer money? Let's look at the facts. According to federal crime statistics released in June, the incidence of rape has decreased 85% since the 1970's. While the Campaign for Corporate Responsibility claims that viewing pornography causes people to commit sex crimes, they ignore the fact that hundreds of millions of porn videos are rented and purchased in the United States each year. Yet, the US Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that violent crime rates have dropped since 1994, to the lowest rates in 2004.

On one of the websites affiliated with the anti-white-collar-porn groups, obscenitycrimes.org, says that "obscenity" is "not protected by the First Amendment." They believe that our right to free speech and freedom of the press does not extend to images that they deem "sexually explicit." I have a feeling that these folks would find any porn to be obscene enough to be outlawed.

It's bad enough that the religious right is trying to impose their morality on hotel patrons, but the issue is made worse by their bad math. If you look at the big picture, you'll find that the statistics do not show that porn leads to rape. On the contrary: over the last 20 years, porn consumption rates have increased, but violent crime has decreased. Even the National Organization for Women has acknowledged that the incidence of both reported rape and unreported rape has declined drastically in the past two decades. And anyone with an internet connection can tell you that there is more and more porn available now than ever before. If porn caused rape, wouldn't there be an increase in sex crimes?

But these right-wing groups, masquerading as "pro-family" organizations, continue to spew the bogus claim that "porn causes rape." This is clearly not the case. Just because rapists view porn does not mean that all people who view porn will rape. Rapists also eat bread, but this does not mean that all people who eat bread will become rapists.

It's one thing to discourage Americans from viewing porn, but another thing entirely to drag the US government into the debate. I wouldn't care if these groups were on a campaign to tell their own followers that porn is bad, but when they try to waste our tax dollars on their "moral" mission, they cross the line. There is simply no evidence to support their insane claims about a link between porn and sex crimes.

It's not surprising that the same people who base their beliefs in a book written 2000 years ago would base their case against porn on sketchy statistical interpretations made 30 yeas ago. In their zeal to control our sex lives, right-wing groups are ignoring such actual social ills as overcrowded schools, illiteracy, poverty, and homelessness, in order to focus on what they consider to be the real villain: consenting adults viewing other consenting adults doing adult things with each other in the privacy of their own homes (and hotels). Using flawed logic and ridiculous rhetoric, the religious right proves once again that they are anti-choice and anti-sex.

One would hope that the hotel industry and media giants would fight back with all the legal action that their supposedly dirty dollars can buy. I hope that the hotels pull out all the stops against this stupid attempt at censorship.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2006/09/waging-war-against-white-collar-porn.html

An Abortion Hits Home: From Fear to Friendship

by Secular Spice

A distant friend called Tuesday morning with an emergency. A young woman we're both close to (let's call her Missy) just found out she's pregnant. Missy's unemployed, has a suspended driver's license, no car, no health insurance, and is only four weeks into her marriage to a young man nearly ten years her junior. They got married in June, as soon as he was old enough to buy the champagne.

There were no corks popping at the news of her pregnancy this week. Missy had no plans to begin a family, and was in no economic or emotional position to become a mother.

Missy hasn't used any birth control method for the past few years, assuming that she was infertile. She genuinely wasn't expecting to get pregnant, and was dismayed when a home pregnancy test gave a positive result.

Missy and her new young husband had talked about having kids, but being kids themselves, had dismissed the idea, due to his youth and her perception of herself as infertile. Kids were out of the question. When they learned this week that Missy was pregnant, they decided immediately to abort the pregnancy.

Missy wasn't sure how I'd feel about her choice to terminate her pregnancy. She knows that when I was in high school, I had given up an unplanned baby for adoption. She thought that this meant that I'd try to talk her into doing the same.

What Missy didn't know was that adoption was not my choice. It was my (now-estranged) mother's choice. I hid my pregnancy until it was too late to abort, only to be forced by my family to place the baby for adoption. Missy didn't know those details, but she did know how deeply hurt and severely traumatized I was by the adoption experience, and how regretful I am now. Missy did not want to experience the horrible sense of loss that occurs when a woman hands over a child that she felt grow inside her.

Missy was afraid to talk to me about her choice to abort, but wanted to tell me, so she had our mutual friend call. I nearly laughed when she told me how hesitant Missy was to contact me. The friend was surprised when I told her that 3 years after the adoption, I'd had an abortion, and I continue to feel great about making the responsible choice to end my unwanted pregnancy. It allowed me the freedom to move on with my life, to grow up, marry, and have my own, planned family. I wouldn't have the wonderful children I have now if I had become a single mom on welfare when I was 21.

After learning all of this, the friend reported back to Missy about my "news." A grateful, sorrowful Missy called me back right away, and we discussed my experiences and her current situation. We discussed the method she had chosen, a "medical abortion" using pills, rather than a surgical procedure. We talked about everything from how to scrape up the $500 for the abortion and the $500 for the IUD she planned to get, to the morality and ethics of terminating a six-week pregnancy. She viewed it as restarting her missed period, and I agreed.

The next day as I was watching TV, I saw a commercial designed to induce guilt in women who'd had abortions in the past. I think it is reprehensible to make a business out of causing pain to total strangers acted responsibly in controlling their lives and their futures. I was reminded of my Catholic upbringing and the constant pressure to feel guilt for every choice, never accepting responsibility for one's actions, but living in a constant state of remorse.

On Friday I went with Missy to the abortion clinic where I had volunteered as a clinic escort in the past. This, too, was a surprise to Missy. I explained to her that I was so enraged by people who harassed clinic patients, calling them names, accusing them of murder, and trying to hand out propaganda. I wanted to help other women exercise their right to choose, so I became an escort. Just as I had done for so many strangers, I walked Missy and her husband past two protestors, and into the clinic.

We talked for over an hour while we waited. I asked her how she felt, and she said she was nervous but glad to be getting it over with. I told her that in the 1970's, feminist activists had a saying: "Abortion on demand, and without apology." Missy smiled, glad that there were people who supported her right to control her destiny, and to choose parenthood when she was ready.

She called me later that night to tell me how relieved she was, and how much better she felt. I told her that she did the right thing for herself in this situation. She and her husband are both satisfied with her choice to have an abortion.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2006/07/abortion-hits-home.html

Activism, Action, and Aftermath

by Secular Spice

Measuring Significance and Success

In activism, there is more than one way to battle injustice, there is more than one way to change people's minds, there is more than one way to send your message. There is more than one way to measure success.

When I think about the actions I've been involved in, I'm not always sure of their efficacy, and I need feedback from my fellow activists. We all have questions about the effectiveness of our actions, and we all need to work with each other on answering them.

For example, are large-scale demonstrations useful? How about lobbying? How about taking to the streets? On April 26, 2004, I walked through the halls of Congress in order to meet with my elected officials to discuss various church-state issues with them, including the problem of agitation from the Religious Right which threatened to interfere with the reproductive rights of American women. The previous day, April 25, 2004, I'd marched under the banner of Americans United for Separation of Church and State in the largest civil rights demonstration ever organized in Washington, DC: the March for Women's Lives.

Despite the fact that over one million people marched in DC in support of reproductive rights, declaring their intention to "vote pro-choice" in the upcoming Presidential elections, "we" lost. Instead, the political Party responsible for the erosion of reproductive rights, the same Party known for kicking holes in the wall of separation between church and state, was the winner in November 2004. Despite the seeming success of the April 2004 rally, we wound up with an anti-choice President, who appointed anti-choice Justices to the Supreme Court. Despite the demonstrations, letters, e-mails, and in-person visits to our elected officials in the past two years since this March, women are waiting for access to emergency contraceptives. Despite the platitudes from our elected officials that they're working on our issues, matters such as Plan B contraception are stalled in DC. One might think that the March had been a failure.

It was the largest march on Washington, ever, yet we failed to achieve our goals of electing a pro-choice President in 2004 and ensuring a pro-choice Supreme Court. Indeed, years later, when hearings were being held for the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, secular and women's rights groups organized to block these men from the Court. Despite our work, each man, neither of whom are known to support the separation of church and state, found a position on the highest Court in the land.

Was the March a waste of time? Was our activism fruitless? It's exasperating to see the "bad guys" "win." It's disheartening to receive little or no results from your particular action or event. But activists persevere despite the drawbacks. Activists will carry on as long as injustice exists. Activists will continue to organize and speak out about their important issues.

Although the April 25, 2004, March for Women's Lives did not have the best outcome, I don't think it was an utter waste of time. I'm still in touch with activists I worked with two years ago on this issue. We still engage in email campaigns on our issues. We're still pushing for Plan B, we're still fighting for abortion clinic access. We won't give up. We may not have "won" our particular battles, but we can now work within the networks we created at the time of the event. We can stay in touch, remaining united to continue to press on for our goals.

Do we need constructive criticism of our activism? Of course. The input of our fellow activists is important. Perhaps we've been down a certain road before. Perhaps we're familiar with tried-and-true methods. Perhaps we can help prevent our fellow activists from reinventing the wheel. It's important to get and give feedback, both positive and negative.

I won't know if I'm effective unless I seek and receive constructive criticism from other people; not only my fellow activists, but the general public, those folks I'm trying to reach. I need to be open to ideas; I need to listen to what people say about my actions, if I want to be an effective activist.

Political issues attract everyone from wingnuts to well-meaning but woefully misled people. Someone has to say something, if someone else is about to make a mistake, or do something, which might reflect poorly on the group as a whole, or detract from the goals of the cause. If a seasoned activist recognizes a flaw in a plan, it's important for that person to speak up. If an idealistic newbie has a bad idea, those in the know should share their expertise and opinion. And if the old folks are stagnating, the new guys can provide fresh ideas, breathing life into the dull and ineffective projects.

Overall, the goal of activism is to get people to think and talk about important matters, possibly changing their opinions. Regardless of immediate results, there is an inherent value in keeping issues at the forefront of people's minds.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2006/06/activism-action-and-aftermath.html

Enemies of Secularism

by Secular Spice

How preachers and pundits incorrectly portray our position

Secularists have a bad reputation in America, and we don't deserve it. While we strive to uphold our Nation's founding principle of government neutrality toward religion, we're attacked by those who ignore America's secular heritage. Enemies of secularism will say anything to slander us.

A few years ago, I caught this comment from Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly in reference to bad behavior in popular culture: "Now we are more progressive, but all the secularism is redefining the country. And I think it's dangerous. The society of 300 million Americans without discipline or standards will fall apart, period."

Secularism is dangerous? Secularism's "redefinition of America" will result in indiscipline, lack of morality, and anarchy? America was founded on secular principles. "Secular" means "nonsectarian" and implies neutrality, not hostility, toward religion. Our godless Constitution created a government that should be neutral on religion, neither endorsing nor suppressing it. As a result of our secular government, America has become one of the most religious nations on Earth.

But that's not what the enemies of secularism say. They don't recognize our role in their religious freedom.

Secularists are constantly slandered in both the media and the pulpit. Disinformation such as O'Reilly's does a disservice to all Americans, spreading mistrust rather than encouraging understanding. This creates an internalized dislike for the very word that accurately describes us, both those who live secular lives and those who work to ensure a secular government. How many of our peers call themselves "secularists"? As with the word "atheist," those to whom the label applies have become reluctant to claim the word that describes them. The term "secularism" is tainted by misuse and fallacious arguments from our enemies.

This unfair wordplay fosters an atmosphere of confusion regarding such subjects as religious liberties, Constitutional rights, and separation of church and state, as well as loftier ideals such as a materialist life stance. We can attribute the distorted image of secularism to the lies told by our enemies. Some media personalities and political leaders have been publicly attacking secularists for so long that the stereotypes are taken for granted, and the anti-secular myths are believed.

Enemies of secularism are everywhere. In addition to right-wing rhetoric in the press, dogmatic church leaders instruct the followers of their religions to hate and fear anything "secular." Take, for example, the tradition of fierce opposition to secularism in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church's stance is that it will not admit that religion is simply a private affair. To them, God is the Creator and Ruler, of both individuals and societies, and therefore the State should not be indifferent to religious matters.

The Church says, "The complete secularization of all public institutions in a Christian nation is inadmissible." It fails to distinguish between religious law and state and federal law. Catholics are taught that "there is no possible compromise between the Church and Secularism," as this life is merely a transition to the afterworld.

When a Greek Orthodox priest decrees that "Secularism is the loss of true life in the church," and claims that secularism alienates church members, how can we compete? Sweeping generalizations made by the enemies of secularism serve to demonize us all. Apparently, they do not understand that the work of secular activists protects their right to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.

Despite the fact that secularism in government serves to protect religious thought, some groups which benefit from State neutrality toward religion are prone to spreading biased falsehoods against it. In the state of Pennsylvania is a small Catholic high school sports team called the "Crusaders." They refer to their crest as "the shield of a Crusader, which serves to protect us from the secularism of the world, while inspiring us to maintain our search for the wonders of God's knowledge in our beloved ___ High School." No wonder people remain misinformed about the role of secularism in today's society: anti-secular sentiment is nothing new in the conservative religions such as Catholicism.

The Catholic Church is not a new enemy of secularism; they've been at it for years. An early pioneer of secularism, Charles Bradlaugh, said in his 1890 farewell speech to England's national Secular Society, "One element of danger in Europe is the approach of the Roman Catholic Church toward meddling in political life." Bradlaugh's foresight is remarkable. Decades after these words were spoken, agitation from the Catholic group Knights of Columbus during the 1950s "Red Scare" caused Congress to violate the First Amendment by adding the words "under God" after "Nation" in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Fifty years later, activists like Michael Newdow and groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom From Religion Foundation are challenging violations of the Establishment Clause, while being demonized by the theocratic opposition. It's time for us to challenge negative, incorrect stereotypes in the media. It's time for us to reclaim secularism, to educate the public about our position, and to ensure that the wall of separation between religion and government never falls.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2006/04/enemies-of-secularism.html

Is This Rant Kosher?

by Secular Spice

An atheist expresses angst over a religious roadblock at lunch.

No WAY. I'm sorry I'm acting so surprised, but damn. You really keep kosher?

Deep down, I secretly think, "There's no God who'd mind if you try the crab cake."

(Seriously. I bet it won't matter in the long run. But I'm not going to ruin our meal or our friendship by saying so.)

It's strange, as an atheist, to see someone who I admire and respect impose some strange dietary restrictions on herself just based on religion. Deep down I wonder, do you really, truly, honestly believe that there actually is a God, and it's a He, and He doesn't want you to eat certain foods? COME ON! IF there were a God, IF there were a Supreme Being, a Creator of Earth and the Universe and everything in it, would it even care if you had shellfish? Don't you think a Creator of EVERYTHING might be tad, I don't know, LENIENT on dietary restrictions for one of the species it created in one of the worlds it created?

I think it, but I don't say it. I don't want to offend you or lose your friendship. I just forget sometimes that your faith is very important to you, and that you're really into it. I associate with so many nonbelievers, or with believers who don't follow the letter of their religious law, that I'm not used to seeing the devout do their thing.

I don't want our difference of religious opinion to get in the way of our friendship. But sometimes it's hard. To an atheist, it's frustrating when any person thinks that their religion is "THE right one." It's sad for us to see a brilliant, beautiful mind, shackled by superstition. It's not always easy for atheists to be friends with theists. Yet these relationships thrive, in our culture of tolerance and acceptance. I learn to deal with your kosher diet and you learn to deal with my hellbound heathenism.

While I'm over here shaking my head at your religious rules and restrictions, you're shaking your head at my refusal to believe in even one of the many gods out on the belief market today. Neither of us talks about it, neither of us is willing to jeopardize our friendship by confronting each other over our religious beliefs. We don't want to fight; we don't want to make each other uncomfortable. We just want to get along and be friends; live and let live.

And that's the beauty of religious freedom, that's what makes America special. I can be best friends with a person of differing views, and I can openly challenge those views at my leisure. I can think what I want and say what I think. But not at lunch.

I don't want to argue with you, I don't want to change your views. But when we have everything else in common, I am surprised by your beliefs. Maybe since I'm friends with so many freethinkers, I am accustomed to a more naturalistic approach to life. I want to respect you, and I don't want to deny your right to religious liberty, but wow, do you really believe all this stuff?

I mean, come on, the BIBLE? Hello? Shrimp is an abomination? You can't mix fabrics? Adam and Eve? Noah's Ark? Lot and his daughters? Eek! What's a skeptic supposed to think? And how can a person as smart and as cool as you be so enwrapped in such a tired old religious belief?

I'm sorry. I don't want to hurt you or insult you or mock your faith. But it's hard for me sometimes, it's really tough to accept that amongst all the many world religions, you have settled for one, and despite all arguments against it or refutations of it, you still hold steadfast to your faith.

I admire it and I regret it. I wish we had just one more thing in common, but I applaud your commitment to your family's legacy. I don't want you to be mad at me for wishing that you were less religious. I just want you to understand that there are so many more tangible things in life to devote oneself to, and you're so smart and so cool that I sometimes forget that we can't share a simple meal.

I'll apologize for my angst, and I'll try to be more understanding. Next time, I won't order the shrimp sushi, because I would rather share with you than try to change who you are or what you think, and I appreciate the fact that you don't infringe my right to be who I am or to be as godless as I want to be.

Next time, I'll try to be a little more tolerant of the religious beliefs I don't agree with, even though, deep down, I just want us to share the crab cake.

http://secularspice.blogspot.com/2006/04/is-this-rant-kosher.html