Home

The Rejection I’m Not Minding

Comments Off on The Rejection I’m Not Minding

Department Of A New Way To Handle Rejection

Context:  Although I am not currently   [1]  writing nor submitting fiction for publication, I do keep up with some fiction markets and occasionally send something I think might be a fit for a specific journal/publisher.  Dateline: last week.  I received a standard rejection email.  It was sent to my correct email address (robyn@ ____.com) , and disguised as a personal note:  it was longer than the standard, thanks-but-it’s-not-a-fit-for-us note, but when you read closely you realize the plethora of sentences after the no thanks are about the publisher and nothing about you or your work – all they had to do was fill in your name…which was done in this entertaining (to moiself ) fashion:

“Dear Sarah,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to evaluate _____( name of work)
in view of its potential fit with (name of the publisher)….I’m very sorry to tell you that we regretfully….”

I can take some comfort in knowing that it wasn’t *my* work that was so regretfully rejected, but that of my evil twin, Sarah.    [2]

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of Speaking Of Writing Adventures

My next project: I’m going to pitch Netflix with my idea for a historical series, ala  Bridgerton. It will be about upper-class women navigating the intricacies of their menstrual cycles during the Regency era. It’s a period piece.

 

 

 

Thank you; I’ll show moiself  out.

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of But Before Moiself  Embarks On That Adventure,
There Is Feedback To Be Given

Feedback in the form of the following email, which I sent Monday afternoon, to one of my favorite podcast hosts (journalist Shankar Vedantam) of one of my favorite podcasts.     [3]

 

 

Dear Mr. Vedantam,

Big fan of your podcast here – I’m a regular listener, who often gives Hidden Brain a shout-out (and link to) in my blog.  I’m writing to give feedback on something that caught my attention in HB’s most recent episode, The Moments That Change Us.

Early on in the episode, you and the podcast’s guest, philosopher Laurie Paul, are discussing the life-altering events for John Newton, the 18th century English slave ship captain who later wrote the hymn Amazing Grace.  When Newton was very young his very religious mother died, and his father remarried, leaving Newton feeling abandoned.  Subsequently, Newton, as you put it, “soon found himself not only turning away from religion but against it…he became what you might call a *militant atheist*….”

Why did you choose to use the term  militant atheist, a derogatory neologism which certainly wasn’t in usage among Newton’s peers?

Militant atheist is a lazy rhetorical cliché, a label ala the (much wittier) “Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse,” which itself is a riff on the violence-infused imagery of end-times Christian scriptures.  The “Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse” refers to four particular scientists/philosophers/authors/journalists – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens – known for their respective, vigorous, droll, evidence-based critiques of religion.  Each of them have also been labeled as  militant atheists.

When did Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens ever arm themselves with AK47s?  Have they amassed a cache of IEDs?  Have they opened a school for training atheist suicide bombers?  The closest they’ve come to tossing grenades are the ideas they lob to point out the delusions of religious tenets and the dangers of applying religious-based constraints to politics and science.

When is the last time you encountered an armed, violent group of atheists bent on murdering a political cartoonist or stabbing a fiction author because they objected to the religious editorial content of the cartoonists’ and authors’ respective works?

How’s about we all agree to not precede the term atheist – which simply means, a person sans theism – with militant, unless that non-theist is actually engaging in the violent acts of a militia?

The main proponents of the term  militant atheist are religious propagandizers:  “You atheists are so militant!”  Translation: “I am upset that you who do not hold my religious beliefs are unapologetically and forthrightly invoking facts to support your critical thinking.”

(from Oxford Languages dictionary)
Militant: adjectivecombative and aggressive in support of a political or social cause,
and typically favoring extreme, violent, or confrontational methods.

Being described as “militant” is dismissive to we who hold natural (as opposed to supernatural) worldviews.  We who are religion-free are not subject to the actual militancy of scriptural decrees and religious leaders’ admonitions, which are depressingly too common to list in their entirety.  A sampler from Christian scriptures includes:

 * “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34)

* “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:3)

* (from one of Jesus’s parables) “But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”  (Luke 19:27)

* “For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”  (Romans 13:4)

*  “…whoever would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.”  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)

* “But if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword.  For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”  (Isaiah 1:20)

* “The high places of Isaac will be destroyed and the sanctuaries of Israel will be ruined; with my sword I will rise against the house of Jeroboam.” (Amos 7:9)

Sure, many of us atheists/Freethinkers/Humanists/Skeptics get annoyed, frustrated, and sometimes even outraged at the supernatural folly we are surrounded by.   Human Psychology 101 alert:  People who are misunderstood, mischaracterized, denigrated, oppressed, and even attacked (physically as well as verbally) frequently become angry.  Remember how “militant” was applied to the Black Power and Feminist groups of the 1960s and 1970s?

We who are religion-free would simply like to be able to express our beliefs without encountering vitriol and discrimination.  We would simply like to acknowledge our views against and concerns about religious influence in public and civic life – yep, even in front of religious people, who have become accustomed to the arbitrary privilege of freedom from critique which is accorded religion in the United States (a country where seven states still have bans on atheists holding public office ).

Sincerely and compellingly (if not militantly) yours,

Robyn Parnell

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of Letting The Mystery Be

Only two weeks ago I blogged about my wistfulness re the unlikelihood of successfully pulling off a prank in this there-are-cameras-everywhere world  ( The Pranks I’m No Longer Playing ).  However, one of my neighbors (?    [4]   ) has done so. 

 

 

 

A couple of weeks ago MH showed me the above, which was tied to one of the branches of our pear tree in our front yard.  Yes, this is the same tree that gets a feature in this blog during the holiday season, when the tree hosts a rotating/weekly lineup of Partridge Family ® members, ala: 

 

 

 

 

Those omnipresent neighborhood  porch/house/garage cameras I mentioned?   MH and I have them, as well.  The cameras are sensitive enough (to our irritation) that they record when someone just walks past our front yard, on the sidewalk      [5]…which goes by the pear tree…which means we could figure out who did it.

Moiself  thinks it’s best to not know the specifics; rather, it’s fun to hold good thoughts for the entire neighborhood.  I’ll just let the mystery be.

 

 

 

*   *   *

Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week     [6]

 

*   *   *

May you be the grateful recipient of a heart-warming prank;
May you reserve epithets like militant for true militants;
May you, sometimes, just let the mystery be;
…and may the hijinks ensue.

Thanks for stopping by.  Au Vendredi!

*   *   *

[1] As in 99.2% of the time not….

[2] who apparently has gotten hold of both my manuscript and my email address, that plagiarizing bitch.

[3] Which regular readers of this blog are aware of me recommending, along the lines of, “you must listen to this episode….”

[4] Moiself  is guessing/assuming.

[5] We receive a notification that someone activated the front porch camera , though no one in fact it is on our front porch, they’re just walking past our house.

[6] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists.   No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.”  Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org

The Announcement I’m Not Applauding

Comments Off on The Announcement I’m Not Applauding

Department Of Why Aren’t You Listening To This Podcast?  [1]

I refer to Hidden Brain, hosted by engineer/journalist/NPR science correspondent Shankar Vedantam . The podcast aims, as per their website, to help “…curious people understand the world – and themselves. Using science and storytelling, Hidden Brain reveals the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, the biases that shape our choices, and the triggers that direct the course of our relationships.” Linking research from fields including psychology, neurobiology, economics, anthropology, and sociology, Hidden Brain aims to provide “… insights to apply at work, at home and throughout your life.”

If you’ve ever wondered…

-Why is our tendency to associate with those who share the same interests, sense of humor and political views demonstrably not the best way to cultivate creativity?

– What causes mild-mannered people turn into fearsome mama and papa bears?

– Can the way you park your car reveal crucial details about you?

– Why do we think back to turning points in our lives and imagine, ‘What if….?’

– Do unconscious biases keep people from finding interesting jobs?

 

…then this is the show for you. And if you never wonder about such things, then you need to get interested in Life.  [2]

 

 

 

 

 

 

From the seemingly mundane to the profound, here is a sampling of recent subjects and questions Hidden Brain has tackled:

* Who Gets Power — And Why It Can Corrupt Even The Best Of Us

* Baseball Umpires Don’t Get Overtime. Does That Affect Extra Innings?

* Hungry, Hungry Hippocampus: Why and How We Eat

* Admit It, Parents: You Play Favorites With The Kids

* Don’t Panic! What We Can Learn From Chaos

* Looking Back: Reflecting On The Past To Understand The Present

Probably the most interesting topic the show has presented involves the origins and purposes of the world’s religions, and how religions “evolved” to help human societies survive and flourish. Most interesting is, I realize, a subjective qualifier, which is used by moiself due to both current and ongoing events and experiences which makes this topic of particular interest.

If you’ve taken part in a religious service, have you ever stopped to think about how it all came to be? How did people become believers? Where did the rituals come from? And most of all, what purpose does it all serve? This week, we explore these questions with psychologist Azim Shariff, who argues that we can think of religion from a Darwinian perspective, as an innovation that helped human societies to survive and flourish.

For most of human history, we lived in small groups of about 50 people. Everyone knew everybody. If you told a lie, stole someone’s dinner, or didnt defend the group against its enemies, there was no way to disappear into the crowd. Everyone knew you, and you would get punished.

But in the last 12,000 years or so, human groups began to expand. It became more difficult to identify and punish the cheaters and free riders. So we needed something big — really big. An epic force that could see what everyone was doing and enforce the rules. Since individual people could no longer police large groups, the policing had to be done by a force that was superhuman. That force… was the popular idea of a “supernatural punisher” – also known as god.

( excerpts from “Creating God,” Hidden Brain, 7-16-18 )

 

 

Cue the wrath.

 

 

The development of religions as a cultural tool is not a new idea (to moiself) – I’ve encountered similar theories across a wide spectrum of disciplines and scientists, including psychologists and cultural anthropologists. Still, this podcast contains one of the most accessible explanations I’ve ever read or heard for the evolution of group religious practice.  [3]  Of course, the answer(s) to the opening questions about the origins of religious practice, if posed to religious believers and not scientists, would be along the lines of,  Because it’s true!, and/or Because my god is real and gave our belief to us! and other simplistic non-answers which fly in the face of the reality that one believer’s religious truth is another believer’s heresy.  [4]

“… Besides the psychological studies, there is evidence from history and psychology that shows modern religions evolved to solve problems related to trust and cooperation…  All the world’s major religions today arose at times when human societies were struggling with the problems of size, complexity, or scarcity.”
( “Creating God,” Hidden Brain, 7-16-18 )

Religions arose as a mechanism – like fire and agriculture – to help us survive as a species. The historical period known as the Neolithic (or Agricultural) Revolution saw the creation and rise of towns and cities.  As humans transitioned from living in small, mostly nomadic, family bands to living in larger groups of unrelated people, we needed a way to get along with strangers. We needed a way to determine who was “one of us” and trustworthy to, say, trade with or intermarry or share water rights and other finite resources…

But, not just any old religion or deity would do, when it came to regulating group behavior amongst strangers.  And how much you believed in a god mattered less then what kind of god you believed in.

The more wrathful/angry the god, the more successful the religions were, in spreading across large groups, and maintaining control of and adherence to social norms.  Correspondingly, the more “costly” the rituals and rites associated with public declaration of adherence to the religion  – i.e. physical and behavioral modifications (e.g. circumcision, clothing and dietary restrictions, sexual practice proscriptions) the more confidence the others had in you as being one of them (and not just faking it to gain access and trust).

 

So, you’ll trust I’m one of you if I cut off the tip of my…what ?!?!?

 

Interestingly, our ancestors who remained in hunter/gatherer groups – which did not have the stranger danger/trust issues – tended not to develop belief in larger, punitive gods. 

Scientists who study (the few remaining) modern day smaller tribes, whose lives resemble those of our ancestors in the pre-civilization/Agricultural revolution days – who live in small group where everyone is known to everyone else – note that these tribes’ gods tend to be “smaller and weaker and less morally concerned…they are more like trickster spirits… that don’t have the power nor the punitive ability nor the concern (to enforce) moral issues.”

 

 

Anyway, I highly recommend this episode of Hidden Brain. Go listen to it yourself,      because I could go on and on about this (and yep, I already have).

 

 

“That’s putting it mildly.”

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of The Afore-Mentioned “Current And Ongoing Events And Experiences Which Makes This Topic Of Particular Interest.”

I’ve been thinking about the development/role of religion a lot recently – before, during and, especially after an out of town trip to attend a family wedding last weekend. While I was happy for the adorable young couple to be starting their married life, the marriage ceremony itself was – like all conservative Christian services are, for me –something to be endured, not celebrated.  Once again I found myself walking the ethical balance beam: trying to avoid attracting attention to moiself while trying to maintain a shred of integrity and not have my presence nor my silence be taken as acquiescence to the preacher’s words and the scripture readings – which essentially amount to a sermon (to a captive audience) on primitive, Bronze Age  blood sacrifice and patriarchal theology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just gotta take those small opposition opportunities when they arise, like my refusal to join the clapping after the couple is introduced by the officiant, after he has pronounced that they are married.  In a mere 30 minutes the woman has gone from being addressed by her first and last name to having her identity announced as the mistress of the man.

It gives me great joy to introduce to you, for the first time,
Mr. and Mrs. Husband’s first name/husband’s last name!

And, holy patriarchal poopfest – the preacherman at this wedding actually read the bible verses about how wives should be submissive to their husbands, and went on at some length about how his god created Eve for Adam (as if they were real people) and thus women for men and how that is the only relationship (man-woman marriage) that is   approved (and mandated )by his god and the only path for happiness….

When I find myself in a church-type venue (either a wedding or a funeral, these days) I always maintain open eyes during the let us bow our heads and pray moments. I pass the time by looking around at the audience (? guests? Whatever we are), noting who does the same. I sought out one of the Eyes Wide Open People  [7]  after the wedding concluded –  someone I’d seen stifling a flinch at a particular rhetorical low point during the ceremony – and ventured to ask his opinion.  He too was surprised by the waaaaay conservatism of the ceremony.  He said couldn’t remember the last time he’d heard such archaic speechifying,  “…and I’ve been to a lot of Catholic weddings recently.”

The overt sexism (and concurrent if covert anti-LGBT sentiment) in (many, but not all) Christian wedding ceremonies is not new to me. But this time, knowing the personal histories of several of the guests and family members, it made me sad in ways I cannot fully articulate.  As the preacherman orated about the Christian god’s plan for marriage and men and women, women and men, blah blah blah, I felt the sense of exclusion, intentionally or otherwise, which the ceremony cast upon  gay family members/guests.  In that world, you’ll take a seat at the back of the bus… if they let you board at all.

 

Thank you for celebrating our special day! However, if you’re gay, we will not help you celebrate yours.

 

 

 

*   *   *

 

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of Musical Interludes, Via One Of The Best Covers
Of An Already Really Good Song

That would be Emmylou Harris and Rodney Crowell’s rendition of Spanish Dancer, a song written and originally recorded by Patti Scialfa on her album, Rumble Doll[8]

 

 

 

 

*   *   *

Department Of Unexpected Bonuses

Moiself has notice that, besides the retail outlets and weed growers themselves, the legalization of marijuana in Oregon has give rise to other businesses offering correlated services.

 

 

*   *   *

 

 

May all of your announcements be applause-worthy;
May you find your own ways to maintain integrity during institutionalized absurdities;
May you never stop asking the
how did it come to be/where it come from/what purpose does it all serve? questions;
…and may the hijinks ensue.

 

 

 

Thanks for stopping by.  Au Vendredi!

*   *   *

 

 

[1] That is, if you’re not. And if you’re not, you should.

[2] And don’t show up at one of my dinner parties and just talk about the weather.

[3] The origins of religions as just that – evolutionary tools – is the only origin story that makes sense of the otherwise implausible and downright silly post-Iron age belief systems.

[4] And then if you posed the questions to a room of believers in different religions you could watch the fundamental fur fly as they try to sort out why the one god they claim to believe in would give vastly different dogma, rituals and practices to its peoples.

[5] Or, as many a religion-free observer has noted about the various religious proscriptions on sex and diet and attire,  “If you can get people to give you their balls, they’ll give you anything.”

[6] And it has links to interesting/relevant research and other articles.

[7] As usual, there were several of us.

[8] Yet another example of a person who might be more well known – and appreciated on her own merits – were she not married to someone famous in the same field (in this case, Bruce Springsteen. Aka – in a just universe – Mr. Patti Scialfa).