“Someone’s looking out for me”: God and the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse

Catholic_church_minneapolis
From USA Today, August 2 2007:

“Jim Koralesky, 63, who also attended the Mass [a prayer service held Thursday in honor of the bridge collapse victims], took the Interstate 35W bridge six times Wednesday before it collapsed. He was about to take it again a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to Home Depot. But he said he ran into a friend in his parking lot and got involved in a conversation. After 15 minutes of chatting, he scuttled plans for his errand.

“‘It would have put me on that bridge around that time,’ he said. ‘Someone’s looking out for me.'”

Minneapolis_bridge_collapse
You hear this a lot in the aftermath of disasters. People who “should have” been on the plane that crashed; people who “should have” been on the freeway that collapsed… they say it a lot. Survivors of the Columbine shooting said it: people who were at the school that day but didn’t get shot. It’s a strikingly common reaction to a near-miss of a huge disaster:

Guardian_angel
“Someone up there was looking out for me.”

“I guess my guardian angel was with me that day.”

And my reaction is always the same:

Rage.

Trembling, teeth-grinding, physically- sick- to- my- stomach rage.

I think this is one of the most insulting, insensitive things a person could possibly say in the aftermath of a deadly disaster.

And it’s one of the things that makes me most angry about religion.

Eric_harris_dylan_klebold
Think about it. So what are the people who actually did die — chopped liver? Where was their guardian angel? The people who did die on the collapsed bridge, the people who did get shot at Columbine — God thought they deserved it? Or maybe God just didn’t care enough about them to save them? Was their guardian angel on a coffee break — or did their angel decide, “Eh, never mind, you can be on the bridge when it collapses”?

Blake_god_1
Obviously, not all religious people are insensitive enough to actually say this stuff out loud. (Especially at a service in honor of the people who did die, for fuck’s sake.) But I think it’s inherently implied; not in all religion, but in any religion that believes in an interventionist god or spirit that has the power to either cause or prevent the earthquake, the school shooting, the bridge collapse.

God_bless_our_home
When you say that your life is blessed by God — that you have your good job, your nice home, your happy family, your health and prosperity generally, all by the grace of God — the logical implication is that people who don’t have those things are cursed by God. The children born into starvation and war; the people whose homes are destroyed by tsunamis; the people who get slaughtered by crazy mass murderers; the children with birth defects or genetic diseases; the people who plunge to their death when a bridge collapses… either God doesn’t like them, or God doesn’t care about them.

Tornado_2
It’s the problem of suffering all over again. Except instead of the problem being, “Why does God cause/ allow suffering?” the problem now becomes, “Why do people think that God is personally protecting them from suffering when he seems perfectly happy to throw millions of others to the wolves?”

Randomness
I get it that it’s hard to believe in dumb luck. It’s hard to believe that your life could be radically changed — or ended — by tiny incidents of pure random chance. It can make you feel very small, and make your life feel very much out of control. (And feeling that your life could be changed or ended by government mismanagement and a reflexive, unthinking, “low taxes always good” approach to fiscal policy… that can really make you feel small and out of control.)

Sistine_god
But if the alternative is a belief in a God who kept you chatting with your friend so you wouldn’t be on the bridge when it collapsed — but didn’t do the same for several other perfectly wonderful people — then I’ll take dumb luck any day. When terrible things happen for completely random reasons, there’s something comforting about not believing that there’s someone out to get you.

Lottery
And I get that people who have been fortunate in life — either in a general “health and prosperity” way or in a more specific “I could easily have been on that bridge when it collapsed” way — often feel a sense of humility and gratitude, and want to express that somehow. While I do think the “Somebody up there likes me” trope is arrogant and insulting, I think most people who use it don’t mean it that way. Not consciously, anyway. As a friend recently told me, one of the hardest parts of letting go of a belief in a conscious guiding spirit is letting go of the impulse to say “Thank you” for the good things in your life. And it’s an impulse I both understand and respect.

Ngel_de_la_guarda
But there has to be a better way to express that feeling than with the insulting, self-centered assertion that “Someone’s looking out for me.” Especially when you’re at the memorial service of the people nobody was looking out for.

(Via Ingrid, who saw the USA Today article at her hotel.)

“Someone’s looking out for me”: God and the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse
{advertisement}

Carnival of the Godless #72

Carousel
Carnival of the Godless #72 is up at Atheist Revolution, with the usual excellent collection of atheist blogging from the last two weeks. This time they included my piece Invisible Punishment: Hell as Social Control, which I think is one of my better pieces on the politics of religion, so I’m happy about that. If you want a good round-up of the latest atheist blogging, be sure to check it out.

Carnival of the Godless #72

The Shrinking Deity and the Empty Coloring Book: Ebon Musings

God
“Throughout history, God has been shrinking.”

Can a piece of writing get stuck in your head the way a song can? This one has. It’s from Ebon Musings, the sibling site to Daylight Atheism, and the two of them are my new favorite atheist blog, with a well-written, well-reasoned, impressively large body of atheist writing. This piece has been on my mind ever since I read it, and I wanted to point y’all to it and talk about it a little.

Burning_bush250x200
The piece, One More Burning Bush, is a compellingly detailed argument for why it makes no sense for God to keep himself hidden from sight. But the part that’s really stuck in my head is the opening section, “The Incredible Shrinking Deity,” in which he points out that the claims made for God’s miraculous deeds have, over the centuries and millennia, been gradually but inexorably shrinking. To quote:

Blake_god_1
“Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers’ hearts when they attend church.”

And again:

Far_side_god_1
“There is a distinct pattern here, and it can best be summed up as this: Throughout history, God has been shrinking. The time when the world was small and God was in control is always in the far distant, half-remembered past. The closer we approach to the present, the less common miracles are and the less accessible he becomes, until the present day when divine activity has dwindled until it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent.”

And one more time:

Religious_symbols
“This pattern is not limited to the Judeo-Christian religions, either. Almost every belief system around the world tells a similar story: a past golden age where the gods were apparent and miracles were abundant, followed by a steady decline of such occurrences until arriving at a thoroughly ordinary, natural present. The kind of events that the Bible and other holy books describe simply do not happen in the world today; the frequency of miracle claims seems to decline almost in direct proportion to our ability to test them. (Emphasis added.)

Apollo
The reason this jumped out at me so strongly and has been stuck in my head so relentlessly is that it gets at, from a completely different angle, what I was getting at in my piece The Unexplained, the Unproven, and the Unlikely (one of my better pieces, if I do say so myself, and one of the central foundations of my own atheist thought). The gist of that piece is that, when you look at the history of the world, you see a startlingly consistent pattern: supernatural explanations of phenomena have been effectively replaced by natural ones by the thousands, while natural explanations of phenomena have been effectively replaced by supernatural ones exactly never. (And therefore, with any given phenomenon that’s currently unexplained, the chances that the explanation will eventually turn out to be a natural one are several orders of magnitude more likely than it turning out to be supernatural or divine.)

Earth_axis
And while I hadn’t thought about it this way before now, Ebon Musings is exactly right. As our understanding of the natural, physical world has increased — and our ability to test theories and claims has improved — the domain of God’s miracles (or other supernatural/metaphysical explanations) has consistently shifted, away from the phenomena that are now understood as physical cause and effect, and onto the increasingly shrinking area of phenomena that we still don’t understand.

Consciousness_explained
Which is a pretty compelling pattern. “Okay, we don’t need God to explain floods, but we still need him to explain sickness and health.” “Okay, we don’t need God to explain sickness and health, but we still need him to explain consciousness.” Whatever it is that we don’t understand at the moment, that’s what gets called God or the supernatural.

Crayola_24pack_2005
And given the consistency of this pattern, that just doesn’t make sense to me. Yes, there’s a lot about the world we don’t understand. But I don’t see why we need to fill in the empty parts of the coloring book with a blue crayon and call it God, or the soul, or metaphysical energy. Throughout history, we consistently and overwhelmingly have had to replace the blue crayon of the supernatural or divine with other, more accurate colors — and as the current evolution debates are demonstrating, scraping the blue crayon out of people’s minds is a stubbornly difficult task that wastes time and energy better spent elsewhere. The blue crayon is worn down to a nub, and it’s never proven to be the right color, and I don’t see why we keep reaching for it every time we see an empty space in the coloring book. I don’t see why we can’t leave the empty parts of the coloring book empty, until we know how to fill them in.

The Shrinking Deity and the Empty Coloring Book: Ebon Musings

Friday Cat Blogging: Snuggling with Lydia and Violet

And now, a cute picture of me with our cats.

Greta_lydia_and_violet_2

Can’t… move! Surrounded… by… huge.. cats! Send… help!

They’ve been doing this a lot lately — Lydia flanking me on my right, Violet on my left — but not usually this aggressively. It’s sweet, but it’s kind of overwhelming, since between the two of them they weigh about 36 pounds.

Friday Cat Blogging: Snuggling with Lydia and Violet

Right Wing Hypocrisy: The Blowfish Blog

David_vitter_official_portrait
I have a somewhat unusual take on the recent slew of right-wing politico sex scandals — David Vitter, Bob Allen, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, etc. etc. etc. — over at the Blowfish Blog. The piece is called Right Wing Hypocrisy, or Why Sex Guilt Fucks Things Up For Everyone, and instead of just ranting about these folks’ hypocrisy (although I do a certain amount of that as well), I ask the question:

Why are the the specific taboo sex acts they engage in so often the exact same ones they publicly campaign against?

Here’s a teaser:

Admittedly, a big part of this pattern comes from the media focus. Hypocrisy in powerful public figures is big news, and I’m sure there’s some cherry-picking in the coverage. After all, “Married Congressman caught with hookers — and he campaigned on the sanctity of marriage!” makes great headlines. “Married Congressman caught with hookers — and he voted to renew the Farm Bill!” isn’t going to make headlines anywhere but the Surrealist Times.

But even given that, there’s a precision to the match-ups between the public condemnation and the private behavior that seems like more than coincidence and media focus.

Ted_haggard
To find out what I think is behind this “preach in public against the exact things you’re doing in private” pattern — and why I find myself having a smidgen of compassion for these assholes — check out the rest of the piece. Enjoy!

Right Wing Hypocrisy: The Blowfish Blog

Carnivals: Of Feminists #42 and Of the Liberals #44

Carnival
It’s blog carnival time again! Carnival of the Liberals #44 is up at The Richmond Democrat, with its usual excellent collection of fine lefty pinko blogging. This is actually a selective carnival — unlike many blog carnivals, they only select the ten best blog postings from the previous fortnight — so I’m pleased and honored to have been selected again, with my piece on why civil unions aren’t equal to marriage either theoretically or practically: One In Seven: Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough.

And Carnival of Feminists #42 is also up at Uncool (wicked cool blog name, btw), with tons of nifty feminist blogging. They also included my One In Seven: Why Civil Unions Aren’t Enough piece, so I’m excited. Enjoy the blogging!

Carnivals: Of Feminists #42 and Of the Liberals #44

Professionalism = Selling Your Soul: A Feminist Rant on “The Devil Wears Prada”

Devil_wears_prada
“The Devil Wears Prada” has been on HBO recently: I watched it again a few days ago (I do think it’s a funny, entertaining, well-crafted movie), and I was reminded of a feminist rant I had when the movie first came out.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_2
Here’s the deal. (Spoiler alert.) The purported arc of the movie is that our heroine, Andrea (Anne Hathaway), is a young would-be journalist in New York who can’t find the kind of serious work she wants, and thus takes a job as assistant to the editor-in-chief at the biggest fashion magazine in the country. She justifies this as (a) a source of a much-needed paycheck, and (b) an entry-level position that could earn her some experience and gain her some connections in the profession.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_1
But she sells out. She sells her soul. She is seduced by the glamour of the fashion industry into abandoning her high ideals; she prioritizes her work over her personal relationships; she stabs her colleague in the back; and she even winds up defending her abusive control-freak boss, Miranda (Meryl Streep) against her many critics. Eventually she realizes the error of her ways, walks out on her job, finds a better one, and grovels for forgiveness to everyone she injured along the way.

So here’s my problem with the movie:

I couldn’t see anything she did wrong.

I was watching very carefully the second time around, and almost every “soul-selling” step that the heroine took seemed perfectly reasonable and defensible.

And more to the point, just about everything she did would have been accepted without blinking in a male protagonist.

Let’s take it a piece at a time. Here are the sins against her soul that Andrea supposedly committed.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_5
1) She stayed in a job she didn’t much care about, in an industry that’s a snakepit of ego and ambition, working for a boss who treated her abysmally… just to get ahead in her career.

Well, yes. If you’re serious about a career, “take this job and shove it” isn’t always an option. Especially if you’re just starting out. Sometimes you have to put up with very bad situations temporarily, to get what you need on your resume (not to mention to keep the paychecks coming). And sometimes you start out at a company you don’t much like or care about, to gain experience you’ll need to eventually work for someone you do care about. That’s not selling your soul. That’s having long-term goals, and the stick-to-it-iveness to go through the necessary, if sometimes unpleasant, preliminary steps to get there. That’s being willing to prioritize your long-term goals over your immediate happiness and comfort. And theoretically, that’s a quality our society values.

Thedevilwearsprada_nate_1jpg
In men, anyway. This especially bugs me because her boyfriend, who’s super-critical of her choices throughout the movie, is an equally ambitious, young, struggling would-be chef… and it’s not like the world of high-end restaurants isn’t a snakepit of ego and ambition, in which people stick with crappy jobs and asshole bosses to get the experience and contacts they need. But somehow, that’s different.

And as it turns out, Andrea was right to do what she did. She did get useful experience and contacts, and at the end of the movie when she applies for the serious journalism job at the lefty newspaper, her recommendation from her old fashion-magazine boss is the tipping point that gets her the job. The job she cares about, and is good at, and that matters in the world.

But somehow, she was still selling her soul.

The_devil_wears_prada_nate_and_andr
2) She prioritized her job over her friends and her lover — including, sin of sins, skipping her boyfriend’s birthday party because of a work emergency.

Let me ask you this. Ingrid currently has a job that she loves — and it currently requires her to travel out of town two and a half days a week. This is a little hard on me, and puts some stress on our relationship. I also currently have a job I love (freelance writing) that currently requires me to spend weekends and evenings writing… time that would otherwise be part of the diminishing time we can spend together. This is a little hard on Ingrid, and puts some stress on our relationship.

Is either of us doing something terribly wrong?

Aisle
I don’t think so. I think we’re both doing exactly the right thing — supporting each other in our respective careers, making space for each other to do what we need to do, and making a point of savoring the time we do have together. That, in my mind, is what you do when you love someone. Obviously there’s a limit — if Ingrid’s job required her to move to Antarctica, I’d put my foot down — but especially when a situation is a temporary, experience-gaining or stopgap situation, cutting your partner some slack so they can get where they’re going in a career they care about is just part of being in a relationship.

Birthday_cake_2
And, as Ingrid pointed out when I first shared this rant with her, “If you had a work emergency and had to skip my birthday party, I’d be disappointed, but I wouldn’t think you’d done anything horribly wrong.” Thinking that a birthday party is the most important thing in the world… that’s not what sane adults do. (In fact, Andrea stayed at the emergency work event only as long as she needed to fulfill the requirements of her job, and when given the chance to stay longer to fulfill her own personal ambitions, she cut out and went home to be with her boyfriend.)

Devil_wears_prada_miranda_andrea_an
But women aren’t supposed to think like this. Nobody blinks an eye when men have to work late or miss special personal events for job emergencies… but women are supposed to be loving and emotional and think family and love are always, always, always more important than work. Andrea was making a difficult but reasonable decision… but somehow, she was still selling her soul.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_6
3) She got sucked into the world of fashion — a world she didn’t care beans about before she took the job.

Yes. Interestingly enough, when you take a new job in a field you’re not familiar with, you often get excited about it and drawn into it. For fuck’s sake, that’s one of the best things about taking a job in a field you’re not familiar with. You learn new things. You expand your horizons. I didn’t know that much about women’s health care before my job at the Feminist Women’s Health Center; or about gay politics before my job at the gay newspaper; or hell, about the music industry before my crappy job at Ticketmaster. I grew to know and care about these things more because of these jobs. That doesn’t make me a sell-out. That makes me an open-minded person who’s eager to learn.

Kingofthehill
You can argue that fashion is a vapid, trivial thing to care about. But you can also argue, as many characters in the movie do, that fashion is an art form, one that touches everyone’s life. Nobody thinks Hank Hill of “King of the Hill” is a sellout because he’s grown to care passionately about propane and propane accessories… but when Andrea grows to see that fashion isn’t as vapid and trivial as she’d originally thought, somehow it means she was selling her soul.

Devil_wears_prada_emily_1
4) She stabbed her friend and colleague in the back.

Now, this is an interesting one. Andrea’s most serious sin, in her mind and everyone else’s, is that, when Miranda told her that she would be going on a coveted trip to Paris instead of her fellow assistant Emily (Emily Blunt), her initial reaction was to say, “I can’t do that, the Paris trip means too much to Emily.” But when Miranda made it clear that refusing the Paris trip would mean risking not only her job, but her chance at a recommendation and her career prospects (I believe her words were, “I’ll assume you’re not serious about your career, here or anywhere else”), Andrea caves and accepts.

In other words:

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_and_mirand
Her boss decides (somewhat unreasonably, but not entirely so) that Andrea is a better and more capable choice for the Paris trip than Emily. Her boss offers her the assignment. She accepts it.

And this is bad because…?

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_and_mirana
That’s what the working world is like. If you’re a boss, you don’t offer assignments based on how much it means to your employees. You offer assignments based on who you think the best person for the assignment will be. And if you’re an employee, you don’t refuse assignments because taking them would hurt someone’s feelings. It’s not like the dating world — it’s not rude or bad to take the job your friend is hot for.

It’s not like Andrea connived and schemed for the trip. It’s not like she tried to undercut Emily or make her look bad so she could get the trip. In fact, she tried to turn the trip down, and she tried to give it to Emily.

Devil_wears_prada_andrea_4pg
But in the end, she acted like a professional. She treated her job like a job, not like a social relationship. She accepted an assignment that her boss offered her, an assignment her boss decided she was better suited to than her colleague — and this, in her own eyes and in everybody else’s, makes her a selfish, backstabbing power-slut. Nobody would blink twice if a man did exactly the same thing — but for Andrea, somehow it means she was selling her soul.

Devil_wears_prada_miranda_1
5) She began to have understanding and sympathy for her abusive, control-freak boss.

My very, very favorite line in the movie — and one that I think sums up in a nutshell the movie’s real message — is when Andrea says to a fellow writer (I’m paraphrasing here), “If a man acted the way Miranda does, nobody would say anything at all except what a great job he does.”

Yup.

That pretty much says it all.

Devil_wears_prada_miranda_4
I think Andrea’s character arc when it comes to Miranda is 100% reasonable. She starts out hating and fearing her; she grows to have some respect and compassion for her; and in the end, she decides that the compromises Miranda has made (personal and ethical) aren’t compromises she would be willing to make.

But somehow, the fact that she ever had respect for Miranda’s professionalism, and compassion for the pain that her sacrifices caused her… somehow, that means she was selling her soul.

*****

Hpandphilosophy
There’s an essay I read in “Harry Potter and Philosophy,” arguing that ambition (the defining quality of the Slytherin house) is, in fact, a virtue. And I would agree. Like most virtues, taken to extremes it can become a vice… but the willingness to focus on long-term professional goals, and to work hard and make sacrifices to reach them, is definitely a virtue. And it’s a virtue that our society generally values quite highly.

Devil_wears_prada_2
But not in women. In women, ambition — being willing to put up with shit to get where you want to go, sometimes prioritizing your career over your personal life, becoming engaged with a job even though it’s ultimately not what you care about most, treating it like a job instead of a slumber party, having respect for successful high-achievers in your field, and generally taking your career seriously — isn’t considered a virtue at all.

In fact, it’s more than just not a virtue. It means that you’re selling your soul.

Professionalism = Selling Your Soul: A Feminist Rant on “The Devil Wears Prada”