Repent!

I got an email on my website the other day. The message was concise and to the point:
"Repent"

In the spirit of brevity I replied:
"For what?"

Within a day my mono-syllabic friend had countered with:
"athiesm, anti calvinism, the whole song and dance."

His relatively verbose response compelled me to an equally expansive reply:
"Calvinism argues that the die was cast long before I was born. What sense would it make to repent?"

In a reply that can only be characterized as escalating, my theological friend had this to say:
"Calvinism also argues the elect to come back, if then you are an elect repent. If not, then so be it, and God's hate abidith upon you."

Ah...there it is at last...the ultimate trump card. If you don't see things the way I do, God's hate abidith upon you.

I have so many different thoughts about this remarkable dynamic. I once heard someone make the argument that sports is an outlet for social aggression. Our favorite football team steps onto the field to do battle with the enemy. The sports fan cheers his representative warriors to victory, screaming for them to kill the other guys. If that sports fan were to walk down the street and threaten to kill another individual, he would be arrested for assault. At the arena we are joyous in victory, crestfallen in defeat. But the violence within us is quenched for a time and society is safer. Or so the argument goes.

It seems to me that religion sort of acts the same way. I have all this aggression in me but I don't dare tell someone to their face that I hate them and wish they would suffer eternally. But if I deflect it and make it about some big equalizer in the sky, I can tell you all day that god hates you and you will be punished for eternity. I feel better about myself and can dismiss you completely as another sentient creature.

Any way, I digress from the story line. I thought about his reply for awhile and decided to ramp up the rhetoric. It's not that this poor fellow was the first to insult me with his simplistic, self-righteous, judgment. It's just that this one followed a more interesting path, so he gets the brunt of my anger.

My reply:
"So it's a bit of a waste of my time and yours, not to mention incredibly presumptive, for you to tell me to repent. Your world view includes an entity that I have clearly indicated I don't believe exists. This is a belief that I arrived at after years and years of searching and agonizing. Were I to postulate the existence of, say, a dragon like creature inhabiting the catacombs of long dead volcanoes, you would justifiably demand extraordinary proof before you would accept my belief.

It's fair for me to require the same of you. For you to circumvent that entire process and arrogantly demand that I repent...too whom would you have me repent? For what? Why? The answer to all those questions presuppose, assume, facts that are simply not in the evidence.

I will repent to those real life people on this earth whom I have wronged. I will be held accountable to those in my life whom I agree to have such a relationship with. I will love those whom I love without the threat of eternal suffering as the impetus. I will NOT permit another moment of my life to be controlled by the fear of a mythical being.

If you feel you have earned some special treasure in heaven by contacting me and making such a rude demand of me...well, that's unfortunate for you. Where do you plan to spend that treasure...Hypocrites-R-Us?"

I know that I have a tendency to become a bit caustic when my ire is raised. That's something I should repent for, but just now I don't much feel like it.

Over the Top Fluffy Words

Richard Haynes' "Life Without Faith" website has been chronicling the salient events since I spoke at the American Atheist conference in April. Recently he featured a comment http://lifewithoutfaith.com/?p=762 that my sister Shirley posted in response to my blog "Why Isn't That Man in Jail".

Within a few hours of reading it I was so angry I sat down and wrote for several hours. Then I walked away from it. Over the next 24 hours my mind went from fury to uncertainty to fear to intimidation and self-loathing to an apathetic resignation that left me physically weak and depressed. This is just one of the manifestations of growing up in that environment. Every step of this journey I fight through some version of that cycle. I’ve come to recognize it and am learning to work past.

In that spirit, I offer the following point-by-point response to Shirley’s comments:

SHIRLEY: “The arrogance of this man. Every rebel has a sob story to justify their disobedience. Richard the rebel I’m sure has a story of his own that he would palm off. But alas, you change nothing!”

NATE: It’s not clear who “this man” is. Maybe me, maybe Dr. Dawkins. Regardless, it says nothing except that we have a difference of opinion. To call someone disobedient is to imply an authority over them that you simply don’t have.

I’m not trying to “justify” anything. The WBC is quite active in telling people its message, and then letting others decide what the value of that message is. I am, in turn, telling my side of the story, and letting people reach their own conclusions. If those people conclude that I am a disobedient rebel, that’s their decision. However, since the WBC seeks to preach “the truth”, why is it that you are so afraid of the truths that I am telling? Why is it that so many responses from people in the WBC complain about “airing dirty laundry” or talking about “private family matters”? If you truly are the voice of God, following in God’s footsteps, then surely you would have no objection to having your lives submitted to the light of public scrutiny? These reactions seem to indicate the opposite; that you, and others in the family, fully recognize that the truth of the ‘inner workings’ of the Phelps household are shameful, and worthy of condemnation.

Denying the rest of the world their story is the hallmark of why your “ministry” is an epic failure. Your obstinate insistence that you’re right and the rest of the world is wrong has reduced your campaign to an international laughing stock.

SHIRLEY: “God set his standard in the earth. Fred Phelps was determined to serve God in truth. That means that you spank your children.”

NATE: Nobody said anything about spanking Shirley. No reasonable, rational person would argue that a child should be left to their own devices, without discipline. I don’t think I have ever used the term spanking in any of my writing or comments. It is deliberately deceitful for you to use that term for what our father did. I was careful in my speech to avoid words or phrases that might mischaracterize the nature of our father’s actions. I simply related the specifics of what he did. In fact, I only presented a small fraction of those specifics.

In light of your efforts to soft peddle it, I’m obliged now to counter your characterization. What our father did was violent child abuse. His actions were criminal. His actions today are a reflection of the same insensitive violence that he visited on his wife and children. You can shroud his deeds in robes of righteousness, with “over the top fluffy words”, and the plain stench of it is still there. He repeatedly, viciously beat us with that mattock handle, his fists, his knees, and his feet. That’s plain English and that’s my indictment! Bring your bible and your formidable legal army. It changes nothing.

SHIRLEY: “The truth of the matter is that Nathan Phelps was determined that he would go after mischief and criminal mischief as he grew older, with both hands. A further truth is that the vast majority of his deeds were never known by his dad. The body of his crimes was so big that his closest siblings were left some days in jaw-dropping amazment [sic] at what he might think of next to do that he had NO BUSINESS DOING!! By ANY standard, you don’t do the things that Nathan did. I know, I was the next child up from him. I lived up close and had a front row seat to the trauma that was the dark heart of disobedience called Nathan Phelps.”

NATE: Yes, I rebelled, and yes, I have done things that were wrong. I know of no human being who can claim otherwise. If you are arguing that this is the standard for determining the ‘truth’ of a claim, or the ‘right’ of a person to speak up, then our father – who abused drugs, and lost his license to practice law due to unethical practices – likewise deserves to be held to the same standards.

You’re big on the whole “connect the dots” rhetoric Shirley so let me speak in your own language for a moment. Please connect the dots between our father violating our mother by chopping her hair off and my mischief. Connect the dots between my misdeeds and the image of our sister Margie lying semi-conscious at the back of the church while our father repeatedly kicked her and brandished a frying pan over her head. Connect the dots between my misconduct and the distended lump at the top of your leg caused by the “spankings” you received from our father. Please Shirley, set your bible aside for a moment and lets play a little game of connect the dots.

Oh, one other point that may be lost on our readers. You mentioned that the old man wasn’t aware of “the vast majority” of my misdeeds. Why is that Shirley? In fact, why is it just as true that the vast majority of all our misdeeds were kept from our father? That’s not the behavior of a loving, properly functioning relationship between a man and a woman. Perhaps so much was kept from our father because our mother was terrified of his violent over reactions. Try finding some bible verses to support that.

SHIRLEY: So at the end of the day, you can multiply words and you can call the standards of God cruel, but you are just another rebel that will spend eterntiy in hell.

NATE: The Bible tells me that I should stone a woman who has a child out of wedlock. Would you support that Biblical standard, Shirley? What of our father’s beliefs that not only is homosexuality wrong, but that homosexuals should be put to death? That’s a side of ‘the message’ that you tend not to proclaim so publicly…why is that? The Bible says that murdering unarmed women and children is fine, as is taking virgin women as slaves. How exactly should we apply that Biblical standard to modern times?

SHIRLEY: However, you should STOP lying about these matters. Further, if you truly want an answer to why Fred Phelps is not in jail for properly raising his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord their God, well - that would be because it is not a crime to do that. Just because you have reached a day where your rebellion is full of over the top fluffy words where you call a spanking child abuse or where you whip out selective memory about events to justify your disobedience, you change nothing. Nathan did leave when he was 18 because he was not going to obey. Good. He had to do that. Then, I bet he left out the part in his little story where he came back.

NATE: As to your charge of lying. You have an army of lawyers at your disposal Shirley. If I have lied, utilize them. Otherwise, dispense with the vacuous rhetoric.

And…”over the top fluffy words”?!? Is that kind of like being a wordsmith? The very title our father so eagerly embraces.

And what of this charge of “selective memory”? Do you mean to say that there are other memories that, in combination with these, justify or excuse our father’s abuses? That his ‘success’ in the legal practice justifies beating us with his fist and a mattock handle? That the times he was nice to our mother justifies brutally chopping off her hair? Your very statement that it is a ‘selective memory’ belies your claim that what I say is not true. If Fred Phelps is the man of god that you claim, then neither you nor anyone else in the family should object to having the truth of our childhood told publicly. You are, of course, welcome to add whatever other information that you feel may ameliorate or justify his actions; but denying them is an act of deceit.

One final item deserves a response. You mentioned the fact that I came back. You’ve raised that issue before and once again, I’m puzzled. You raise the issue as though you think that mitigates the truth of me leaving on my 18^th birthday. I’m not sure how. Do you perceive that as a lie of omission? Does my having come back for a time demonstrate that our father wasn’t abusive? I’m honestly confused.

However, I do think it’s fair to the reader to address that issue since you’ve raised it. In 1979, nearly 3 years after I left, I began communicating with you and Margie. My brother Mark and I had started our first print shop in Prairie Village, Kansas. Mark had been forced to leave the operation of the business to me because of a threat of legal action by his former employer. Mark moved back to Topeka and started another shop there while I attempted to run the first location on my own.

I was living alone in the Kansas City area and struggling with that isolation. You and Margie began to suggest that I come back home, work in the law office, and go back to college. The desire to be connected to my family was very powerful. And it should be noted, one very important aspect of that whole drama was the constant reassurance that both of you gave me that our father was no longer physically violent. Eventually, I made the decision to return home. That decision was very destructive to my relationship with my brother Mark.

Once home, I learned very quickly that my work at the law office was not going to be compensated. I had debt to service so I went out and found a job that was actually providing an income. This violated my father’s expectations and created tremendous tension. Although the violence did appear to be far less, my father had plenty of weapons in his arsenal to insure compliance. Eventually he called a meeting to discuss my disobedience. I refused to attend. The outcome of that meeting was that I was required to leave…immediately.

Nothing about that chapter in my life speaks to the essence of the story as I’ve told it; except to highlight the fact that the only way that you were able to get me to come back was through promising that our father’s violence had decreased; a violence that you now seek to deny or justify. If that violence were untrue, or were justified…then why would a decrease in that violence be a desirable thing?

Crushing on Ida

How many more discoveries our out there, yet to be made? This is what excites me.

The most hated family in America

Fall from Grace

"The Real Bible"

I just finished reading an essay by Robert Ingersoll entitled "About the Holy Bible". He wrote this back in 1894. I'm embarrassed to admit that, though I had heard his name many times over the years, I had never actually sought out his writings until recently. Ingersoll was one of my father's favorite targets behind the pulpit. Now I understand why.

But that's not why I was compelled to write about him today. The essay is fairly long, repetitive in places, but one of those pieces that drew me in and stirred my heart. It's the same feeling I get every time I happen upon a new source that speaks so clearly the thoughts and ideas that are imprisoned in my mind. It is as though a door is finally opened and the truth is freed for me.

Once again, I sat and wondered what it was about his writing that sparked such strong emotion in me. Today a new awareness came to me. These writings that create such powerful positive emotion in me have one thing in common. These men are confident and unrepentant in their beliefs. Whatever doubts they harbored about finally saying what must be said are put aside and they cry out with a loud, passionate voice:

"Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself."

So begins Ingersoll's essay.

I was left with the very strong impression that this man had worried over the consequences of his decision but ultimately concluded that he had no choice. Someone had to stand up against this great conspiracy of ignorance that has stained the path of humanity for the past two millennium. Not only does Ingersoll stand up, he erects an edifice of defiance against the hubiris of Christianity that has easily weathered the onslaught of myth-based bilious blather for over 100 years.

But that's not even my real point to this blog.

Near the end of his writing I found this:

"Ministers wonder how I can be wicked enough to attack the Bible.

I will tell them: This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death, the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man.

This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants -- the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion's sake. This book funded the Inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled fagots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane.

This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave- mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned "witches" and "wizards." This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts, and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks and nuns -- with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of this life, that he might be happy in another -- to waste this world for the sake of the next.

I attack this book because it is the enemy of human liberty -- the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress.

Let me ask the ministers one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?"

Much of this I immediately embraced as reflecting my own thoughts and beliefs. But there were new ideas, dangerous ideas, that left me uneasy. It's never a good idea to use phrases like "unclean saint" or "the pious and the useless". These are men and women of god who have...

...wait.

I went back and re-read it with fresh eyes and realized something profound about myself. A part of me still clings to this idea that what I turned my back on is actually goodness. Deep inside me I still accept the premise that to reject this system of belief is to throw my lot in with the contemptable, the unsavory. To reject Christ is to turn to the dark side.

That's not to say that I deliberately, willfully made the choice with that in mind. It's more subtle then that, but still just as powerful. I've even argued with my mouth that my choice is not a choice against good and for evil, rather a choice to abandon mythology for rational thought. But the still, small voice is there and chaffs at arguments that would paint righteous Christians as "corrupted...hateful, cruel [or] ignorant."

One of my greatest strengths and most profound weaknesses is that I want to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Then Ingersoll delivers the coup de grace:

"For thousands of years men have been writing the real Bible, and it is being written from day to day, and it will never be finished while man has life. All the facts that we know, all the truly recorded events, all the discoveries and inventions, all the wonderful machines whose wheels and levers seem to think, all the poems, crystals from the brain, flowers from the heart, all the songs of love and joy, of smiles and tears, the great dramas of Imagination's world, the wondrous paintings, miracles of form and color, of light and shade, the marvelous marbles that seem to live and breathe, the secrets told by rock and star, by dust and flower, by rain and snow, by frost and flame, by winding stream and desert sand, by mountain range and billowed sea.

All the wisdom that lengthens and ennobles life, all that avoids or cures disease, or conquers pain -- all just and perfect laws and rules that guide and shape our lives, all thoughts that feed the flames of love the music that transfigures, enraptures and enthralls the victories of heart and brain, the miracles that hands have wrought, the deft and cunning hands of those who worked for wife and child, the histories of noble deeds, of brave and useful men, of faithful loving wives, of quenchless mother-love, of conflicts for the right, of sufferings for the truth, of all the best that all the men and women of the world have said, and thought and done through all the years.

These treasures of the heart and brain -- these are the Sacred Scriptures of the human race."

I know it enough to say it. My brain understands the damage that myths have caused over the centuries. But a part of me still wonders, worries, struggles with the what if question. I suppose it is to be expected in the early stages of my journey. But reading the words of Ingersoll reminds me again, it is not to be accepted.

Why Isn't That Man In Jail?

After speaking at the American Atheist convention in Atlanta the first person to the mic for the Q&A session was Dr. Dawkins. The bottom line of his question: Why was my father still walking around a free man after all the violence he perpetrated on our family? My reaction was incredulity and a little bit of fear. It seemed so obvious to me, that I worried the rest of the audience would chuckle at Dr. Dawkin's naivety. But the fear part puzzled me.

Grateful that Dr. Dawkins had even listened to my speech, I just let the uncomfortable nature of his inquiry slip into the background. A few hours after the speech, back in my hotel room, my fiance mentioned that she had spent a few minutes in discussion with Richard Dawkins after the speech. He was still agitated about my father and demanding to know how it was possible that he was still a free man. My fiance tried to explain it further. Later in the evening, in the lounge, I was introduced to Heidi Anderson. In our conversation she changed the flavor of the subject by pointing out that Dr. Dawkins was from England and things obviously were different there.

A few days ago, a thread appeared on Richarddawkins.net linking to my published speech. Dr. Dawkins appeared in the comments section and once again raised the issue:

"I heard Nate Phelps give this talk and was deeply moved by sympathy for Nate and a passionate desire to see Fred Phelps put behind bars for the rest of his nasty life. I asked various people why he has not been arrested for violent abuse of his family. The answers I got were rather unsatisfactory: a combination of "If you are sufficiently adept at manipulating the letter of the law, you can get out of anything" and "Anybody who calls himself 'Reverend' can get out of anything." I am reluctant to believe either of these explanations.

Richard"

This led to a number of other comments posted on the thread with variations on the same question.

Let me try to explain from my point of view.

It has been too long since the violence happened to me. The American legal system places time limitations on bringing charges against someone. I realize that begs the question of why didn't I do something sooner. Well, now we get into this whole area of the psychology of abuse. I can't say I'm an expert on it other then to tell you that every thought of vengeance that ever entered my mind was almost immediately dispelled by the certainty that I would die if I acted on it. Being severely beaten over and over, while at the same time being told that you deserve to be taken outside the city gates and stoned to death, does something to your mind. Remember, this is the person who is to define the world for you. The person who is to demonstrate the nature of life. The person who is to provide safety and security for a formative mind.

I looked to my mother for protection from my father. When I was around the age of 6, my mother packed the kids into the car and ran away to her sister Dorthy in Kansas City. Her sister lived in a small walk up apartment in a poor area of town. Her home was filled to overflowing with all the children. I remember being sat down in her living room with the TV while my mother and aunt sat, shoulders slumped, drinking coffee in the kitchen. Even at that age, the sense of joy was strong in me that we weren't going to have to deal with that man again. In the end she went back. I can only imagine the impossible hurdle she faced being alone and unemployed with 10 or 11 kids at that point. I learned very quickly that she was just as defeated by his violence as any of the children. The very real threat of violence and even death was more then enough to keep his wife and children from seeking help from the outside. Any intervention would have to be instigated from without.

In 1972 charges were brought against my father stemming from a particularly violent beating he administered to my brother Jon and myself. An excerpt from "Addicted To Hate" lays out the salient details of that:

"For the moment, however, it had gone beyond the pastor's control. Police detectives investigated the matter, and it was filed as juvenile abuse cases #13119 and #13120. Jonathon and Nate were assigned a court- appointed lawyer, as a guardian-ad-litem, to protect their interests. The assistant county attorney took charge of the cases, and juvenile officers were assigned to the boys.

In his motion to dismiss, the ever-resourceful Phelps filed a pontifically sobering sermon on the value of strict discipline and corporal punishment in a good Christian upbringing. "When he beat us, he told us if it became a legal case, we'd pay hell," says Nate. "And we believed him. At that time, there was nothing we wanted to see more than those charges dropped. When the guardian ad litem came to interview us, we lied through our teeth."

Principals involved in the case speculate the boys' statements, along with superiors' reluctance to tangle with the litigious pastor, caused the charges to be dropped. The last reason is not academic speculation. The Capital-Journal has learned through several sources that the Topeka Police Department's attitude toward the Phelps' family in the '70s and '80s was hands off-this guy's more trouble than it's worth'.

Three months later, the case was dismissed upon the motion of the state. The reason given by the prosecutor was "no case sufficient to go to trial in opinion of state". The boys were selling candy in Highland Park when they learned from their mom during a rest break the Pastor Phelps would not go on trial for beating his children. "I felt elated," remembers Nate. "It meant at least I wouldn't get beaten for that."

But if Nate's life was so full of pain and fear, why didn't he speak up when he was at the police station and everyone was being so nice to him? Nate laughs. It's the veteran's tolerant amusement at the novice's question. "We'll do anything not to have to give up our parents," he answers. "That's just the way kids are. That's the way we were." "Besides, when it (abuse) occurs since birth, it never even crosses your mind to fight back," interrupts Mark. "You know how they train elephants?

They raise them tied to a chain in the ground. Later, it's replaced by a rope and a stick. But the elephant never stops thinking it's a chain." The loyal Phelps family are of two minds on the case. Margie admitted it had occurred. Jonathon denied it. The pastor never decided. Instead, he launched into a lecture on the value of tough love in raising good Christians.

Since their juvenile files were destroyed when the boys reached eighteen, but for their father's vindictiveness, there might have been no record of this case. As it was, he sued the school. This caused the school's insurance company to request a statement from Principal Dittemore, who complied, describing the events which led to the faculty's concern the boys were being abused. The suit was dropped."

What this excerpt doesn't detail is the level of intimidation that my brother and I faced from our father. When it came time for us to discuss the case with Tom Valentine, the attorney appointed to represent us (what a joke), my father spent hours pounding into our heads exactly what to say and what not to say. I remember the extreme dislike I felt toward Mr. Valentine because his presence threatened my physical safety. I no longer had the capacity to even recognize who was my friend and who was my enemy. I learned the outside world was impotent against my father.

Dr. Dawkins asked me why I waited until 18 to leave. I thought I made that clear in my speech. My father had the legal right to do with us as he saw fit until we reached the age of legal independence. That age was 18. Ultimately my brother Mark succeeded in leaving because his efforts began AFTER he turned 18. My sister Kathy tried to leave when she was 17 and the violence he visited on her, after he found her and forced her home, was epic.

There was no way in hell I was leaving before It was legal to be on my own.

There was no way in hell I was staying after it was legal to be on my own.

That was the best I could do...until now. When asked why I'm speaking out against my father my thoughts always get muddled. It's impossible to pick a single motive or even identify, honestly, all my motives. It's disingenuous to say that I have no notion of vengence. But until Dr. Dawkins asked that question, and this issue started being debated, it never occured to me that speaking out is, at least in part, my way of finally defeating this demon I live with every day.

If there is a way, and I shudder even thinking this out loud, to make this man pay for his cruelty, perhaps this journey will lead me to it. But ultimately there must be a strong will from within the state or federal government or my father and my family will run roughshod over them in the defense they mount for their prophet.