Book Review: “Who Will Rise Up” Part II

Don’t look now, but Jed’s antiquated sexism is showing. Sure, he spends some time trying to rebut this before the fact in a previous chapter in a section called “Politically Correct” but even that reeked of sniggering gesticulation (p. 106-107). Readers might as well re-title that entire section “We Saw What You Did There.” Jed basically goes on about how the Political Correctness movement (which actually has nothing to do with these labels) could get people wrongfully labeled as homophobic or sexist for showing disagreement with mainstream mores. Well, okay, we can see that. Disagree with affirmative action and possibly get wrongfully labeled a racist. Display old fashioned traditional sensibilities with women and potentially get called sexist.

Many girls walk around campus braless and, on numerous occasions, to the delight of the boys, they have flashed their bare breasts toward me. No wonder there are so many rapes on college campuses. Those girls walking and jogging around campus with their shorts so short that their buttocks hang out are just asking for it. They might as well have a sign on their back saying, “Rape me, rape me, rape me.” (p. 114.)

Then, of course, there’s blatant showboating sexism. This, right after making craven veiled claims that his god “may be” condemning women to mastectomies and hysterectomies because of what he observes as today’s feminine immorality (p. 113).

“Masturbation is one of the first expressions of lust. Your masturbator of today is very likely to be your homosexual of tomorrow. Your homosexual of tomorrow could be your psychology professor of the next day. In fact, universities are graduating more queers than Ph.D’s.” (p 117.) Okay. So what? Jed certainly goes out of his way not to cite any sources, but it strikes me that this drippy “very likely” and “could be” language is just to cover up the baseless assertions that he’s trying to make. Although, I think that per capita a university must be graduating more homosexuals than Ph.Ds simply because of the sheer rarity of Ph.Ds and that—if a Ph.D is not statistically connected to homosexuality—there are therefore Ph.D graduates who are also homosexual. This entire paragraph was a childish appeal to ridicule.

Once again, Jed’s cherry picking reappears—this time in the reverse direction—he retells the story of Lot, instead of holding Lot on a pedestal, he’s attacking the people of Sodom. So now he brings up the rest of the story. “Lot had the same attitude, and he was vexed to the point of offering his own virgin daughters to a gang of sodomites.” (p. 118). This is part of the same story which Jed earlier used as an example of the Sodomites telling Lot not judge them; he portrayed the story as part of his illustration on using morals to judge behavior. This is Lot, after all, the only “good man” in all of Sodom and Gomorrah.

After further bad rhetoric and some poorly narrated stories about why he believes homosexuality is bad, Jed moves onto condoms. Here he has managed to cross the threshold from gibbering kook to outright jackass liar. “The AIDS virus is fifty times smaller than the tiniest pores of a latex condom. Using a condom to prevent AIDS is like using a tennis racquet to return B-B pellets.” (p. 122). This particular line of gibberish is brought to you not by a real misunderstanding of science done by the Center for Disease Control on the matter, but instead it’s a deliberately deceitful bit of propaganda forwarded by evangelists in 3rd world countries like Africa to preach against condoms—worsening the already horrible HIV epidemic in such places. George Smock is a reprehensible asshole for reprinting this lie.

“Most students may not realize that, when they use drugs, they are practicing sorcery. Sorcery comes from the Greek word ‘pharmakeia,’ which in English would be ‘pharmacy’ or ‘drugs.’ Anyone using drugs illicitly is practicing sorcery. ” (p. 124.) Firstly, this is a fallacy by etymology—secondly, he’s wrong: E. Sorcery comes from L. sors/sortis: fate, oracle. Perhaps he was confused by the meaning of AG. pharmakis or witch. Maybe he should have claimed instead, following etymology, that drug users were practicing witchcraft.

Part I | Part II | Part III

Mill Avenue Resistance: Saturday, November 22st 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Saturday, November 22nd 2008.

The SFTS invited out some reporters from the New Times tonight to observe what they do and get some time to talk to everyone.

Tonight we saw a varied crew: Jim and his wheelchair, Edwin, Al, Suzanne and her daughter, even Vocab Malone (—btw, both of us missed each other because we don’t know what we look like, even though we stood within close proximity to each other several times!)

From what I observed the two who came out got photographs of many people. Spoke with Al, Jim, and others to get notes and quotes. I pretty much stayed out of their way. I tend to find my position on Mill Ave to be one as more an observer when it comes to the SFTS and the evangelists; I spend most of my intimate time with the Mill rats. It seemed to go well.

By and large very little happened. According to Kazz they moved from Borders at 8:30pm to the Post Office because Al had set up there. Shortly after they left (about 5 mins) Edwin set up amplification in front of Borders and started talking but that didn’t last long. Al also gave up the ghost pretty shortly and simply played some sort of tape of from his amplification that I couldn’t make out and unfortunately didn’t get a chance to ask him what it was about.

One of the best encounters of the night happened between Trevor (an evangelist I will go into shortly) and a Latina woman who started talking about the conception of Jesus. I may have misheard her initially but she seemed to start out by talking about the immaculate conception of Jesus Christ. For those who don’t know what this is, it is a part of Catholic doctrine that Mary, mother of Jesus, was without sin thus that she should give birth to Jesus (i.e. a sinless vessel to bring their god into the world.) There is a Wikipedia article on this for those who don’t understand the terms in this paragraph.[1]

I probably did mishear her because Trevor immediately jumped on her for this because the Bible does not support this, from what I hear it is entirely Catholic doctrine and does not show up in the scriptures. An assumption based on passages readings, as it were. So, every time the conversation moved away from it, he brought it back up again, until she reneged on it (or basically said she hadn’t said that which could have been the case.)

Eventually Trevor came to talk to me and his disciplined mirror-speech was something profound.

In spite of the thickness of his mirrorspeech which was crystalline and sheer in quality, I was able to tease out some personality from him. According to him he’s been doing this about four years, ever since he went into Alcoholics Anonymous because of his lifestyle of party going and drinking and drug use—but he found the teachings of the AA to be “false teachings” because they suggested that people become gods unto themselves, or seek out some ambiguous higher power in order to drag themselves out of the hole their addition left them in.

“They hate Jesus there,” he said, “you start talking about Christ and they’ll throw you out.” I actually have never heard that, but I suppose that in a very important way the AA groups might need to keep themselves as even keel as possible and allowing highly controversial Christianity into their midst could destroy the fragile balance they have with helping people. I fear that he may have taken this as a form of persecution rather than the social protocol that it probably was.

However as much as I tried I could not determine the first time that he picked up a Bible or how he actually came to start doing what he does. He deflected or misunderstood every question of that vein, turning it into more mirrorspeech at every turn. I eventually gave up and just listened. It would have been nice to know how he came to decide upon Christianity, and his singular type of evangelism in particular.

His speech was steeped in strong metaphor as well. Saying that his heart had been stone and replaced with a heart of flesh—and that if I accepted what he did the same would happen. In trying to draw me into a discussion about religion he ran into my normal observations about mythology and made the lay-mistake of thinking that the connotation of “myth” is tied up with mythology. I tried a little bit to dance around talking about his mythology, though, as I don’t think that I could have educated him in the proper use of the term without him unthinkingly taking insult.

Eventually I told him about my work on Mill Ave. How I spend a lot of time observing and getting to know people. “I love people, they are wonderful—amazing creatures who make up our social landscape.” He wanted to tell me that if I wanted to study people that the biggest thing was their wickedness. He went on about how people were selfish, and horrible, and awful and into themselves, and so on.

Trevor, if you read this I want you to know that in a very powerful sense that you are drowning yourself in soot colored glasses when you do this. I tried to tell you last night, but you don’t want to listen to me: you want to sell your religion to me. I’m not buying. I observe people and I don’t see evil and horror and choking weeds ravaging the world; because that’s not what’s going on. You are strapping on an outmoded morality that demands good of people by comparing them to an arbitrary “perfect.”

The perfect is the enemy of the good. We will never be able to set a proper morality, nor love and embrace our fellow creatures if we set upon them such rigidified, uncaring, and unsympathetic strangling mores. By painting other people with a brush tarred in the differences you think are flaws and ignoring their triumphs, their adoration, their love, and the wonder in them you have condemned yourself to an extremely dismal experience. This kind of escapism will end only in your self-destruction as you asphyxiate in your own self-imposed bubble.

The biggest problem with all of this is that clearly you are aware of the world around you; you can respect and interact with other people; if you really do recoil from everyone you meet and think them horrible and awful then you are condescending everyone you speak to.

When I study people I do get the good and the bad, by leaps and bounds different metrics for “good and bad” persist—and few of them reach the scary “everyone is wicked” meme that you have injected into your blood and it will poison you. Instead of being the mouthpiece of rigid vulgarity maybe one day you can decide to be the amazing person that surely you must actually be.

(I love the word “wicked” by the way; it’s such a beautiful word, linguistically thorny, and anthropologically powerful—this is probably why evangelists are so in love with it themselves.)

At the end of our conversation he cheerfully offered me his hand and we shook where he asked me my name. As per usual I gave him my Crystalian name, which is also my street name, and handle. “Amerist.” Which he instantly took as exotic and expressed incredulity that it was my “real name.” By which, I think, he means my family name, but he’s using an old-hat linguistic trick to disenfranchise any other name than family names. Then he requested my birth name, which I don’t even have anymore—then tried to guess it, and he did really badly because my birth name is actually even more exotic than my street name.

Eventually he went away flustered at not learning my name; and even tried to tie some weird metaphor to my explanation of what my name means (“her [stone] purifying tears”.) I tried to explain to him that my name essentially is a variation of a name that meant “she who bears [away] the sorrows of the world.” To which I said fit in with my healer tradition, taking away suffering, helping and mending people. And click on came his mirrorspeech again—as I fully expected—“There is only one healer! And that’s Jesus.”

(I wrote a lot more about Trevor in my Mill Avenue Nights blog.)

Why are evangelists so hung up on your “real name”?

Psychologically names are powerful things; they are how we interact socially with other creatures, they become the labels by which we represent ourselves, they are not just our identity within the group, but they are also the handles by which others attain and attract our attention. Saying a person’s name is attractive to their mind—say a name in a crowded room and that person will likely take notice, turn their head—so I’d like to introduce everyone to what is basically a dirty trick.

It’s called false intimacy.

Salesman and flimflam artists are well versed in the false intimacy trick. It is a staple of confidence men and anyone who is attempting to convince you of something—or sell you something like an evangelist is. What they will ask you for is your name, generally your first name if you give them your last name. I would love to see some staunch British aristocrat berate someone for being rude by not accepting “Mrs. Strahan” and requesting a first name. By using your first name they are psychologically trying to put themselves on the same level as your close and intimate friends.

Mythology about “true names” isn’t too far off the truth. Names may not have metaphysical or supernatural power—but they do have psychological power. We are social creatures and are more likely to accept what our friends tell us without much corroboration (they are our friends, after all) and our friends use particular protocols of speech that acquaintances and strangers do not know. One of these things is our familiar name.

In the conversation a person endeavoring to gain your confidence will say your first name over and over again in an attempt to cause your social brain to link what they’re saying to something you should be confident in. Of course, if they’re your friend they will use a familiar name, therefore they must be familiar if they’re using that name—and if they use it over and over again they keep and rapt your attention to what they’re saying.

Listen to a used car salesman work sometime.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using whatever name you want in any encounter with any person; and it is good for you to be aware of how you control the various compartments of your life with your own identity. In our society we have at least two names to start with that we use on a general basis. A great deal of people find their family name “Mrs. Strahan” or such to be stuffy and enjoy being called by their first names. It is just important to realize that when a person attempts to use your name against you to listen to your instincts.

If you are an evangelist and you have received training in this sort of psychological hack, take a moment to realize that applying this is the razor’s edge of dishonest behavior.

Mill Avenue Resistance: Friday, November 21st 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Friday, November 21st 2008.

Tonight there were only two preachers for the SFTS to face off against: Jim and Valerie.

I’ve been talking to Valerie for years now, but I don’t know quite enough to get into any gross detail about her. And Jim I am not familiar with. Therefore this will mostly outline my observations of their interaction with the SFTS.

They brought with them a little trolley to truck some props out to Mill Ave including a small little amplified speaker that looks like an electric-torch-cum-tweeter. The microphone worked out pretty well for them, and the SFTS didn’t bring their amplification so they didn’t have any. It didn’t matter much because everyone could hear each other just fine.

The only crowd that gathered was the SFTS which did an excellent job of locking up the evangelists the entire time. Not a single passerby actually stopped to listen to them, and both the evangelists spent most of the previous night handing out pamphlets so they had none to hand out when the stage show came on. As a result only SFTS tracts were handed out.

Between the ordinary religious memes there was an unfortunate amount of scientific and basic knowledge ignorance being bratted from the soapbox. Which, I fear, is just Valerie repeating known-bad propaganda from Answers in Genesis. Including several that I believe they have modified to say: Do not use these arguments.

I hope anyone reading this understands that there is absolutely no need for a God vs. Science dichotomy. Evolution and religiosity are not diametrically opposed nor are they contradictory unless someone has tied up their supernatural in natural explanations, which is exceedingly foolish as our knowledge of the natural expands and tends to discount or dismiss the supernatural as flimflammery. If a thing is actually immeasurable, don’t start trying to give evidence of it in measurements or you’ll get laughed at.

It may be extremely important to stop people and tell them that framing discussions as Evolution vs. Christianity is not truthful. Science is totally agnostic towards the supernatural, and by agnostic I mean exactly that: nothing in science attempts to provide evidence for or against gods or spirits or anything else supernatural. If evidence were to arise for the supernatural: it would then be natural.

If anyone ever tries to say, “Ah you, you guys are believe in evolution not god.” It is important to follow that up with, “Those two things aren’t related.” Don’t ever get drawn into a discussion of Evolution vs. God/Religion. It is not a real discussion, at best it’s spinning wheels, at worst it’s simply psychic masturbation for both parties.

The coelacanth is an embarrassment to scientists because it was named a ‘living fossil;’ since this would tend to disprove evolution because here is something that should have been long gone. A fish, growing legs.” I believe she’s confused the coelacanth with another fish—this line of fish descended from some well known fossils has never been seen to be growing legs. Yes, they are “lobe finned fish” which are believed to be the descendants of fish that eventually grew legs, but the coelacanth is a descendant of the lobe finned ancestor that did not in fact go that direction—their lineage did stay pretty much totally fishlike. So, really, she’s got it backwards.[1]

Finally, the “living fossil” reference is no embarrassment to anyone. Coelacanth are in fact one of the oldest direct lineages from a known fossil that we’ve seen today—the only problem with her speech was that she suggested that the modern coelacanth is the same fish as the fossils, which it is not. In fact, modern coelacanth are a different species from the fossilized fish and show distinct and notable morphological differences from the fossils. We have today a distant, distant descendant and not the original “fossil.” This is actually predicted by evolution.

[In reference to the Big Bang,] Scientists have never seen explosions result in greater order. Nothing has ever exploded and produced more information.” More failed memes. Primarily because this one uses a weird description of the word “information.” And, really, nothing stops a disorderly explosion from resulting in order after it has occurred. Detonate something in a gravitational field, eventually many of the particles will form into a very orderly ring, or join up with the gravitational mass, creating a fairly orderly object.

Worse: information is what we make of it. Take a safe that I cannot penetrate. I blow it up and whatever flies out is more information about that safe than I had before. When I heard her say the information phrase I wanted to tell her that some Particle Physicists would like to talk to her about her misapprehension of exploding things.

Finally—for anyone who doesn’t know this yet—the Big Bang was not an explosion.[2] People who refer to it as an explosion have listened to too much Kent Hovind or are repeating propaganda so ignorant of the cosmological theory that they are hopelessly lost in their own misunderstanding. The term “explosion” has a rather specific definition that does not fit the event of the Big Bang. In fact, the Big Bang is currently considered a cosmological fact—not as a cosmological origin, but as a current state: the observable Universe is expanding.

Since the Big Bang cosmological origin says: “In the beginning Space-Time rapidly expanded; and it’s still expanding today.”

A lot of these memes are directly from Answers In Genesis. Most of them flimsy or failed, steeped in gross ignorance that even a layperson could educate themselves about. The primary problem is that the AiG information is couched in philosophical wording and interesting metaphors that are attractive to people who do not really want to learn much about these things. They are fed them as if they contradict their religiosity, they want to be skeptical about them, but they end up instead swallowing poison and thinking they’ve learned something.

The worst part about it is that none of these theories and facts that they call out with special attention have anything to do with their religiosity. Science as whole is not concerned about the veracity of that which cannot be detected, that which does not manifest, or that which cannot have evidence.

A good deal of these failed memes include usages like:

Increase/decrease in information.” Gross misapprehension of what the word “information” means in scientific or even conversant contexts.

The origin of life and the origin of species.” A terrible misunderstanding of the fact of evolution and Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, both of which are agnostic as to the origin of life itself. Abiogensis is a totally different field of study than Evolutionary Biology. All evolution requires is living things, since they’re already here it’s good to go.

The origin of everything vs. the origin of species.” The most bizarre misunderstanding I have ever encountered: trying to tie cosmological facts and theories to the fact and theory of Evolution. The irregularity is so staggering that it’s hard to even respond to these types of conflations.

Really, the most unhealthy part of this propaganda is that a lot of the people who want to espouse nonexistent or totally debunked problems with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection and the fact of evolution are specially pleading that evolution itself is wrong—while reaping the benefits of Evolutionary Biology every time that they take an antibiotic, or get a flu-short, or get their blood tested for a particular virus or protozoan.

Question for people

I also receive some tracts and things from the preachers when I go out to Mill. Normally I just collect these into yearly paleo-samples of the dialogues and manuscripts of their behavior—would anyone be interested if I dissected or gave observations on some of the tracts?



Mill Avenue Resistance: Saturday, November 15th 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Saturday, November 15th 2008.

The nightly Saturday action-pack of the Way of the Master preachers has come to us again in the form of Al, Edwin, Erin, and Sean—I am missing a few but there wasn’t much going on tonight to speak of. Jim also came around in his wheelchair but we didn’t have much of a chance to speak when he did so.

They split themselves across the Ave between a spot at Borders (and across the street in front of the parking-lot formerly known as Long Wong’s) and the Post Office. The SFTS split themselves also accordingly. Setting up originally in front of the P.O. but then eventually heading over to set up in front of Borders. This is partially because while the preachers pitched in front of the P.O. at first, they did make a mass exodus and then gathered in front of Borders.

For the most part tonight Rocco and Joe dominated the speaker.

Rocco by presenting a strong, staunchly logical presentation; not accepting bad or un-cited messages, pointing out fallacies of bare assertion. A favorite that he uses is about the assertion that the Bible is inerrant because of the number of prophecies fulfilled—an thing possibly acceptable as long as those prophecies are not fulfilled by the Bible itself; because it’s provenance cannot be proven. (To explain: if there are prophecies in my history and I write a book speaking after-the-fact, I can say that they were fulfilled in my book and as long as my writings are not corroborated my assertions are not meaningful.) So the destruction of Tyre is brought up, as prophesized by Ezekiel. Except that it never happened.

Tyre was never destroyed—and still exists today.1

It is not uncommon for the evangelicals to attempt to use prophecy in their holy book as a proper and right resource to say that it is true. This has never been a good idea because of those prophecies that could be corroborated by history (i.e. by sources outside of the Bible) they are often shown to be either false, too vague to be trusted, or of a language that couldn’t be tested for truth anyway.

Joe chose to argue the depths of the philosophy and the flaws that it opens up. With his background in Catholicism he also uses Biblical scripture. His discussions tended around arguments that managed both morality and evidence in differing segments. Sean, of course, never quite listens to what’s being said to him. He is, however, a far better listener than Jeremiah.

Sean said, “There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than there is about George Washington, the first President of the United States.”

Sometimes these evangelicals say things that are so absolutely knowable as wrong that it’s hard not to mention them. There are thousands of corroborated documents to the existence of George Washington, even original manuscripts of his own writing still survive. We have paintings of the man created during the time he was alive along with other figures also corroborated. None of these things are true of the Christian god, Jesus Christ.

To say a thing like this a person must be staggeringly ignorant of not just the historical provenance of George Washington, but has to be totally ignorant of all modern knowledge of what we know historically about the history of the mythological figure of Jesus—who didn’t get written about in any sort of document until long after he would have lived.

When people wed their mythology as tightly as they can to empirical evidence and reality they set themselves up to be disappointed in some terrible ways. It is this sort of behavior that creates apostates and crisis in their very own congregations—because at some point, a lot like children discovering that Santa Claus is “just an idea,” people will discover that Jesus doesn’t have a lot of corroborating evidence.

What is a spectacle?

It is not the design of these evangelicals to actually convert anyone. They might believe in their minds that this is what they are doing, spreading their mythology, but they have been marginalized into something less substantial and more surface instead. Their behavior is almost wholly spectacle and not conversant.

When on their soap-boxes they do not converse, and they do not convert. They yell at passersby, present them with barely-quandaries, and instead puff themselves up in their own regard. The effect of a spectacle is to present yourself against the world, it deepens the bonds of the group through shared activity. They present themselves, their holy book, and their thoughts together in a sort of open-air echo-chamber where they do not hear and do not listen to the criticism leveled at them.

In order to provide a particularly effective spectacle they gather crowds, then they revert to their mirror-speech, absorb the catcalls as part of their performance, and then go on. It is in fact our very own little side-show for Mill.

The effect it has for them is one of bonding. It gives them something to do on a Saturday. A way to make each other see that they have worked at what they are about, providing their mandate, but it has little to no real effect on the world. It may also work as a sort of release-valve for their tensions over the week, a chance to speak their minds into the microphone and let them breathe out.

This is a lot of the reason why week after week extremely ignorant things get said. Especially things that could be corrected after five minutes of simple research—even things that get corrected by passersby, the STFS, and others every week. Mirror-speech is an unbreakable bubble designed to provide a sort of armor against criticism; but it also armors a person from enlightening themselves to the actuality of what they’re talking about.

People who agree with them while walking past will smile to themselves and chuckle; those who disagree will always shake their head; and those who don’t care will continue not to care.

The only effective part of the evangelism that has been brought to Mill Ave is the one-on-one speeches done by preachers to individuals. The speakers presenting themselves through the amplifications are only a spectacle to gather that crowd.

Mill Avenue Resistance: Friday, November 14th 2008

The Mill Avenue Resistance reports are written by Kyt Dotson as an extension of anthropological research on the population of Mill Avenue in Tempe, Arizona. Since the SFTS does their protests Friday and Saturday there are two reports a week. The supporting material not related to the Resistance reports can be found on the Under the Hills blog for Friday, November 14th 2008.

Out tonight were a small group of preachers—possibly two—who spend a bit less of a time with breaking people down and raking them over the coals, but instead stick more tightly to their Biblical scriptures. This proved to be interesting for members of the SFTS who like to discuss their interpretation of that mythology.

The True Vine Baptist Church in Glendale, Arizona appears to be their origin point. The True Vine is an international organization of churches, almost franchise-like. They appear to pride themselves in what they’d call “Biblical mandate,” which is how they attempt to separate themselves from other evangelicals who come out to Mill.

No need for amplification today: they weren’t using any.

It appears that several of the members who I’ve met before are already famous with the group. For example Tom, an elder with bright blonde-white hair that spikes above his head, who was initially holding a sign. Several interesting conversations sparked out but nothing that I found myself privy to.

Ed, who is an elder of possibly fifty or sixty years by now, is an overweight, post-athletic man with a projecting voice and a sensibility that I see sometimes in work-a-day veterans, like my grandfather. He carries his bible in his ham-fists, smiles under his round spectacles, and speaks with a careful diction. I’ve been seeing him on Mill for the past four years, and it took a while before he started to talk to me as a person rather than an evangelical.


Tonight there were about six children. Four girls and two boys in the group. (Their names I have written but I’m not republishing.) Three of them are Ed’s adopted children, those who have been taken out of neglectful and abusive homes and given better lives. One in particular, huge Buddy Holly glasses, visible front teeth, and spiked hair, I’m told, has an ADD impatience because he used to spend days locked up in his room without attention.

The ages of the children ranged from about eight to twelve, all fairly preteen. They involved themselves broadly in the proceedings and rituals, mostly staying silent. Carrying about in groups or clustered near adults. All normal child behaviors. No gamboling and capering for them on Mill Ave.


I noticed a sign. A tall, screen-printed thing. It depicted one of the Christian gods, Jesus Christ, lashed to a tree (possibly a wooden strut), being whipped and insulted by a pair of Roman centurions—who were depicted with incorrect armor. Talk bubbles displayed things like, “This one for the fool!” and possibly messages about the King of the Jews.

(Some of the members of the SFTS found the quotes of Biblical script on the sign to be interesting and brought that up, but I don’t know what exactly so I’m going to have to ask tonight and modify this post to reflect that.)

Others, mostly latino men, shouted incoherent words into the street at passing cars—incoherent because the echo of their voices did not come back to me where I stood. They had smaller, white signs of laminated corrugated cardboard with black stenciled letters.

One in particular read:

And God shall judge the secrets of men.


Over the period of the night a few of the SFTS got into an argument with a latina woman wearing glasses, dark hair pulled back, who used the kids as messengers to find Bible passages for her. One telling event was when she became upset during a discussion of battles and the siege of cities in the Bible (possibly Jericho) where the invading army razed the city and murdered the civilian occupants upon the command of YHVH. Kazz and others argued quite directly if she condoned that then she condoned the murder of children.

Her heated reply, of course, was that people were putting words in her mouth. She didn’t condone the murder of children. I hope that it’s not necessary for me to walk people through the conclusion that when someone condones an act that involves the murder of children that they necessary also condone that. YHVH from the Old Testament of Christian mythology is a war god, leading tribes from land to land, annihilating foes, and often massacring children along with the adults.

Why? Because this is how tribal warfare is fought. An army cannot take care of a city full of children—if they just killed all of the noncombatant adults, the children would end up starving to death anyway.

After a certain point it’s necessary to acknowledge that tribal warfare, as put forth by YHVH, was a war of expansion and aggression and came with all of the vicious and horrible elements thereof—including the murder of children. It was a barbaric, horrible time and led by barbaric and terrible deities.

When attempting to argue these points members of the SFTS might be better to attempt to wrap themselves around a thesis of: “We have outgrown this.” And while pointing out these events talk about why we should not carry this baggage with us. Too many of these arguments devolve into spitting matches because the evangelicals feel like they’re under attack (and in a way they are right, but really it’s only because they’ve taken their mythology into themselves.) They shield themselves with a martyr complex that they then use to rationalize and justify their actions in the face of criticism.

It may be necessary to frame every discussion in order to prevent them from easily attempting to transfer their own demonization of others onto the people attempting to show them that these sort of myths—believed upon faith as grand tapestries of behavior—perhaps should be taken with grains of salt for the tribal desert clan stories they are.

Mill Avenue Resistance: Saturday, November 8th 2008


Instead of introducing everyone to the cast of characters, I’m just going to jump right in. I don’t feel like playing this out like some stranger than fiction episode of Supernatural or bore everyone to death with a 48-hours with Dan Rather. Instead, let’s just wing it and see where we go. For a less dicey version that includes a different perspective on Mill itself, go see the Mill Avenue Nights for Saturday on my blog.

I have just gotten back from Michigan and so my perspective of all the players has yet coalesced but tonight I saw a number of the old standbys and a few new people. How about some old fashioned name dropping? Edwin, Jeremiah, Jim, Erin, Al… These are all names we’ll see appear in this post as the evangelists. As for the SFTS we have Kazz, Rocco, Todd, Rachel, Brad…

I am probably missing people so forgive me, my memory for names is only as good as my notes, but reflecting the actions of tonight I can do.

The evangelists pooled around the wan half-light of the Borders around the book trolleys as they waited for a consensus of action. By way of introduction, this group of evangelists who come out to Mill appear to be some schism of Protestant Christianity who study a religious marketing technique known as the Way of the Master—which is a technique taught through propaganda, political training, and videos produced by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Tonight Mill welcomed the presence of a particularly well known almost-celebrity among the evangelists, Jeremiah. He is a stout, handsome man with a strong jaw and a stronger set of windpipes. He used to bring with him an easel with propaganda messages that contained mistakes and some easily researched outright falsehoods. But now he comes fairly unaccompanied except for his trusty metal step—which he uses as a pulpit—and a small amplified speaker about the size of a large flashlight.

The evangelists usually set themselves up in front of Urban Outfitters (much to the chagrin of the shopkeepers who actually tolerate them quite a bit) but lately a well-played busker with an extremely loud amplifier sets up there and drowns them out more effectively than the SFTS could. Although, extremely loud guitar music debate does not make. And I want to hear people talk: not scream their lungs hoarse.

So, Jeremiah set off across the street from Borders, in front of the dirt parking lot that used to be Long Wong’s. As the crowds stood, agitated and happy some with drink and some with their own frivolity, I watched the cabs as they drove up and parked along the edge waiting for their fares. I didn’t get a chance to interview any of them—but as anyone should know, I have a particular adoration for taxi drivers.

Shortly: it was on!

I have never witnessed such extreme noise before. Although, it was impressive. Here and there we could hear Jeremiah shouting out simplified, succinct versions of the usual mirror-speech the evangelists use. “Give up your sin that you love!” And once or twice he claimed to have his free speech diminished due to the criticism levied at him; but pretty much he simply shouted on and on, ignoring pleas of questions, and rolling over anyone who wanted to speak to him. But, this is Jeremiah to a T.

The result became audible chaos. A stream of burning words from Jeremiah refuted by tag-team echoes from Rocco and Todd of varied quality (since the amps seemed to have a problem) and direct admonitions from Omar with his bull-horn, which was clearly the winner when it came to audibility.

The real amusement of the night happened to be displayed in Jeremiah’s sulking behavior, generally right after he accused Omar and others of being rebellious children, or acting juvenile; more than once he abruptly changed position—never more than 6 yards from his previous. “Looks like we’re moving to the left people! There we goes, set up to our left!” He moved no less than four times, back and forth, and once stationed himself with his back to the street instead of the dirt lot.

Another time he mentioned that, “The atheists cannot get a crowd of their own, they have to steal mine,” and promptly went on—but, I’m sure he didn’t notice, but about the point he said that Todd and Rocco were in side conversations with such a mass of the people nobody was listening to him anyway. Shortly thereafter Jeremiah stopped speaking entirely, shut down, and hung around in the background for some one-on-one conversations with others.

Topics ranged from the origin of evil to the mechanism of morality. Largely the evangelical preaching from this side of the street didn’t evoke anything more than rebuttals instead of debate or observation. But then, I don’t know that it’s supposed to do more than that. An evangelist isn’t here to strike up thought; they’re speaking commands: “Do this. Do that. Or suffer this. Suffer that.” There’s little in the way of debate with this sort of behavior—it is a concrete I’m right, you’re wrong, do as I say.

I am interested in hearing what people of varied cultures think of what the evangelists do on Mill Ave. How many people think it is in their best self-interest to behave in this manner?


Although, I would guess that Jeremiah was fairly well running interference. He managed to blunder his way into gathering a large crowd of dissenters and some apathetic people—mostly of the younger teen variety who went away irritated at him and his message. However, all those losses could have been recouped by the fact that Al and his little crew set up in front of the Post Office while the rest were sitting around Borders, and all of the SFTS was next to the dirt-lot to counter him.


The SFTS can bring out a lot of amplification but the speakers seem to have issues with their upper end. Loud speakers like Todd have their voices husked and silenced in strange ways when they speak too loud. Perhaps it’s the speakers themselves or maybe it’s the microphones.

I’m no sound expert but Jeremiah’s little amp far excelled at clarion speech over that of the SFTS.

Avoid multiple speakers at once in the future. One speaker and the bullhorn should have been more than enough, especially with Jeremiah’s particular brand of talk-over-everyone-and-not-listen behavior.


At this point I’d like to invite experiences from any of our users who want to tell us what they got out of the spectacle last night. And, if you’re willing, give me what you think about everyone coming out.

Remember: I’m here to study Mill, and especially its people, so if you have something to say about the current condition of Mill, the evangelists, the SFTS, I’ll be very happy to hear it.

Mill Avenue Resistance Reports

Kazz has asked me to come in as a guest blogger in order to produce observations of the Secular Free Thought Society’s activism on Mill Avenue as part of their resistance against the activity of Christian evangelists. I will attempt to do my best to perform a critique of the position and reliability of the SFTS, give sociological and anthropological observations of the evangelists, and hopefully entertain a few people along the way.

I cannot promise that I am going to be very kind to either side, although really I am reluctant to say there are “sides” here in spite of the obvious dichotomy of philosophy and the nature of protest activism. Expect a scathing whenever someone steps out of line—yes, I do pull punches, but that’s because I’m inherently academic and not mean spirited, but I can be riled when I see people misbehaving.

I am not a totally outside observer. I am strongly biased against evangelism on Mill Ave because I am essentially embedded with the SFTS cause, although I do not have a strong presence with them. This is because all of Mill Ave is grounds for my study, it’s the place that I’ve lived, and it’s pretty much my stomping-grounds. As a result I feel very strongly about things that disrupt, annoy, or otherwise cause injury to the Ave and its visitors.

If anyone has comments on my observations, my technique, or my apparent lack of discipline in my fields of study, please bring them up. Expect my style to be somewhat gonzo journalism and gung-ho anthropology.

I am here because I love people.

As always this will be excerpts and extended reflections of my notes from my author blog at Under the Hills.

I hope everyone enjoys and I’ll see everyone there.