Xordelia (dot) COM

So lately I’ve been hearing a lot about this so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” (Islamic Community center) and I really can’t believe how much media attention it is getting from both sides.

1. The “mosque” will be located in New York. New York is a state, not a country. Many of the most outspoken critics haven’t even BEEN to New York, yet care unduly for the affairs of another state?

2. The “mosque” is not located at Ground Zero. It is a few blocks away. Plans to build this mosque were in place even before 9/11.

3. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader behind the mosque, is a moderate Muslim, even liberal by Islamic standards. If we must tolerate religion in the US (it’s in our constitution) we need moderate religious people rather than fundamentalist nut-cases.

4. Yes, the people who attacked us on 9/11 were Muslim. But we’ve had Christians wreak plenty of havoc in the name of religion. Most Americans don’t consider Christianity to be as toxic as it is, so why have double standards with Muslims? The fundamentalist minority should not define the peaceful majority.

5. As an American who vividly remembers the details of 9/11 including where I was standing when the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center, I agree that it is a little bit insensitive to build an Islamic Community cCenter so close to Ground Zero. But ultimately it isn’t up to me to decide what happens 1) in another state and 2) on private property. Maybe this Community Center will help us become more tolerant and move forward as a modern globalized nation.

6. The first amendment, the same amendment that allows Christians and the religious-right to spread hate in the name of religion, also gives Muslims the right to worship and build mosques wherever they choose. If religious liberty is eliminated for one group, it will have to be eliminated for all groups.

Lets take a look at what the first amendment guarantees all Americans:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That means that, just like civil rights, it isn’t up to the majority to decide on the rights of the minority. I’m sorry if you disagree with something, by all means scream and make a ruckus about it, but in the end Christians would be the ones screaming the loudest if someone denied THEM religious liberty. I guess this shows the ultimate hypocrisy of Christianity that many complain about.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Although I am an anti-religion Atheist, I like to consider myself open minded. That said, I occasionally watch religious documentaries and read books from the religious-right. Today I came upon this video on Netflix called “Lord, Save Us From Your Followers” which was apparently adapted from a book of the same name.

The author (and host of the movie) is an evangelical, but one I could consider liberal. Although he holds deep conviction in his beliefs, he also sees how the rest of the world views fundamentalist Christians and wants to change that perception. His message is that Christians are losing their Christ-like demeanor and actually going backward in terms of their sociocultural stances. Rather than focusing on love and turning the other cheek, they are becoming more combattive and militant – working to pass laws to deny women reproductive right and LGBTQ Americans civil rights all in the name of religion.

I am all for freedom of speech, it is our first amendment right after all. And although I am generally all for the ACLU, I do think they go a bit far with pressuring businesses not to celebrate Christmas or Easter. There is nothing offensive to me about a nativity, a “holiday” tree or the Easter bunny. We have gone too far as a society trying to keep everyone happy. Dan Merchant, in this film, goes as far as showing all of the cities with religious names such as St. Paul, St. Petersburg, etc and jokingly suggesting we rename them to New Leningrad. Although America is not a Christian nation, we are rooted in religious freedom, after all that is why our original settlers came here. Let Americans celebrate religious holidays and let cities keep their names.

What this ultimately gives us as Bill O’Reilly and Dan Merchant have suggested is a culture war in the US. We have the liberals (or “secular progressives” as Bill O’Reilly coined in his book Culture Warrior) on one side and the conservatives (the religious-right) on the other side. Neither is willing to accept defeat and in the past decade this has fueled a huge political “fire” which has come to define American politics.

Next the movie goes on to show a “Family Feud” style game show with liberals versus conservatives. The liberals whipped the butts of the conservatives, even when it came to religious topics. Dan Merchant’s message through this illustration is that liberals (secular progressives) understand the culture of Christians much better than Christians understand the culture and beliefs of progressives. He goes as far as saying that if this disconnect between the two factions doesn’t change that we are going to continue to live in a very divided country.

Drawing on the opinions of authors, politicians and lots of other big names in our culture, Dan Merchant touches on American consumerism. I know I personally am a “victim” (happy participant) in consumerism. I have been programmed by our society to live by the motto “want it, buy it; can’t afford it, charge it” and it’s a very bad thing. Christian, Atheist, conservative, liberal, straight, gay, male, female – we are all victims of consumerism. Consumerism is an issue we should all be concerned with. It should be the big issue, not gay marriage, not abortion.

Jesus Christ is someone that we all respect. Christians or Atheists – we all agree that Jesus was a great philosopher, he is a great idea. We can all apply his teachings to our life and make it a better life. We may differ on believing that he is a god rather than just a great man, but regardless we should all apply his teachings to our life.

In the end, although I may never see eye to eye with the religious-right, a difference in belief doesn’t mean we have to be enemies. I have tons of people in my life who are staunchly religious, including my mother. I love her dearly. I have friends, acquaintances, colleagues and family members who I love dearly and we don’t see eye to eye on really…anything. If I can get along with them, why can’t others in the American public agree to disagree with people? Like race and gender, religion and sexual orientation should be irrelevant in American culture. There is a separation of church and state in our country. There is also unlimited religious freedom (along with freedom of speech and assembly also guaranteed in the first amendment). Rather than always being at war with each other, we need to live and let live. Although I’m sure this culture war isn’t going away anytime soon, the only thing that is going to win this war is love (something profound that was said to me by a teacher from my high school). We need to learn to understand the “enemy”, learn to see the good in them, learn to love them, learn to work together for a common good that we can all agree upon.

All humans have the potential for love, for goodness. Lets put our differences aside and start loving rather than hating. Love conquers all.

Some of the most outspoken personalities of the religious right are women. Sharon Engel, Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter – the list continues. They claim to believe in the bible and to live by its rules, but do they really adhere to strict biblical canon? After all, it is immoral and sinful to pick and choose the parts of the bible that you like. Lets see what the New Testament has to say about the role of women in society…

This from 1 Corinthians 11:

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Further, from 1 Corinthians 14:

14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Rather than being so outspoken about political issues, campaigning to deny civil rights to minority groups, and having tea parties – perhaps these outspoken women should follow the teachings of the Apostle Paul in their Providence-inspired holy book: shut up, cover your head and if you must speak, filter it through your husband. Don’t have a husband? I’m sorry. Marriage is sacred, you should go find one.

Until next time…

This video really creeped me out…but it’s true of religious dogma.

Today I was reading an article on Change.org about a church in Michigan who outed one of their gay parishioners and socially isolated him. Having been through similar treatment at a church I went to in high school, I found this article infuriating. Like a lot of Christians, I was very unhappy being gay. In fact, I was self-hating from about 13 years old until late high school. It took me until I was 20 to come out. When I went to this church, I got very involved and became a youth leader. I spent most of my summer volunteering at the church and working hard for – not what I believed in – but for a feeling of belonging, a purpose.

I don’t know that I ever actually drank the Judeo-Christian kool aid. I think it was more of a socio-cultural thing for me. I was born and raised as a Christian and went to church a lot, so I thought that’s just what you do. I never much cared for the church I grew up in, but was very enthusiastic about a church I found in high school. As I said above, I got involved quickly. Like most Christians, I had perpetual feelings of guilt. I never felt like I was good enough for God (read: conservative Christian far right culture) so I was went up for alter calls almost every week at church, trying to make myself worthy in the eyes of God. Talking to friends and family, I’m not the only one who felt like this. But it made me feel very guilty to be gay; I wanted to be cured. So I talked to my “mentors” at church about praying with me, etc.

Like most Christians, they subscribed to the belief that homosexuality is a “choice” and that the “gay lifestyle” is a very negative thing. They prayed with me for some kind of divine intervention to cure me. When no divine intervention came from their fictitious God, they removed me from every program I was involved in and socially isolated me to the point of excommunication. Since it is a big church in a big town, they couldn’t go as far as publicly excommunicating me but they made it uncomfortable to the point of forcing me to (voluntarily?) leave.

In the end I’m just thankful I live in California or I may have been sent to one of those horrible deprogramming camps that permanently damage people for the rest of their lives.

Here is the article in question, entitled: Michigan Church Outs, Then Expels Gay Man:

A man from Williamston Michigan is battling her church over his sexuality.

The man, who wishes not to have his name used, says that by discussing her sexuality with the pastor of Lighthouse Community Church in Williamston, a small bedroom community east of Lansing, he has been targeted for excommunication from the church.

In a June 28 email to the man, Pastor Thurm Payton wrote, “I want to make one more appeal to you to turn from the lifestyle you’ve chosen to deal with the feelings you have wrestled with for many years. I can’t escape the truth that you’ve taken a severe detour in God’s plan for how your life is to be lived.”

He further states,”I would deeply regret it if the effect of my trusting friendship with you was to slowly enable you to accept a lifestyle that is against God’s Word.”

But the man was not interested in denouncing his homosexuality, as Payton plead with him to do.

So when the man declined, Payton, evidently worried with accidentally “enabling” his homosexuality, decided in conjunction with pastoral leaders Jimmy Gretzinger, John Newman, Mark Harbison and Tom Blaylock that it was necessary to excommunicate the man.

Sounds like a story that happens to hundreds of thousands of LGBT people everyday. Except the “leadership team” decided that excommunication was not enough. The sent a four page letter to the congregation announcing the man, as well as a person accused of adultery, would be subjected to a public excommunication.

The letter outed the man to the church.

“This is literally a scarlet letter, designed to isolate and humiliate the members accused of impropriety,” said Truth Wins Out’s Executive Director Wayne Besen. “It is absurd that the church claims that its intent is not to injure the alleged sinners. They are clearly engaging in a vindictive game of mean-spirited psychological attacks causing grave harm to the individuals singled out and targeted.”

“This church has the right to hold self-righteous and backwards ideas on sexuality,” said Besen. “However, what they are doing is immoral and their actions should be brought to light. With such a medieval mindset, it should be no surprise that many Americans are turning away from such barbaric churches in droves.”

And the kicker to all this? The Williamston Public Schools are renting the middle school cafeteria to the church, thus supporting the group with tax payer funded locations.

Editor’s note: The gender of the person involved in this case was accidentally identified as female, when in fact the victim of the church’s excommunication is a male. We apologize for this error.

This is truly sad, that in this day and time, middle Americans are still so ignorant about LGBTQ issues. The worst part is that they don’t care about LGBTQ issues; most of them do not WANT to become educated on LGBTQ issues. In general, Christians pick and choose the parts of the bible that they want and ignore the parts that inconvenience them. I still fail to understand why Christians make such a big deal out of homosexuality but eat unclean meat, wear clothes of mixed fabric, work on Sundays, tolerate divorce and allow their wives to leave the house. If you read Leviticus all of these things are mentioned, but on these issues they take a liberal approach to Leviticus and decide that the things they dislike are no longer relevant. Maybe homosexuality is irrelevant today too?

Jesus was a loving man who never mentioned homosexuality once, on the contrary he blessed and loved Mary Magdalene – a prostitute. So why the witch hunt on “fags”? Shouldn’t Christians be focused on preserving marriage within their own church and preventing divorce? If marriage is such a sacred institution that they want to deny it to homosexual couples, then why not focus on making marriage more successful?

Here are some comments that were follow ups to this article, these two I found especially profound

The first one is by Dave Hershey:

Dear Pastor Thurm Payton,

I just read on a website about a gay man that you and your church excommunicated. I understand that you wish for him to change his sexual orientation. However, according to the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, and nearly all other various medical, psychological and psychiatric organizations have stated that it is dangerous to alienate people based on their sexual orientation.

There are two things that your treatment of this man leads me to believe, you are not only going against what Jesus taught, which is love and acceptance (remember the prostitute Jesus saved from stoning?) and that by outing him to the entire congregation you are also a very vindictive person and untrustworthy person. (The shame should be ALL on you!)

I’m sure you have wondered why so many LGBT citizens have turned away from the church, it is this VERY reason! Because of the hatred shown toward them, and the lack of love and acceptance.

You and the pastoral leaders of your business (I refuse to refer to your business as a church because it is far from being a place of solace and peace as it should be) ought to be ashamed of your actions, but somehow I know you are likely not.

I would like to recommend a piece I read months ago that I think explains why so many LGBT citizens have left the church. And I also think it may help you understand more about the LGBT community as a whole and why we have rejected your “hate the sin, love the sinner” meme that you like to use. It can be found here: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/04/02/21575

It is my hope that you will read this piece and open your eyes to the truth, and that is we are very loving and caring people. That we come from all walks of life. And no matter how much you want us to conform to YOUR worldview, that will never happen until you start accepting us for who and what we are, your fellow human beings, your neighbors, and members of your earthly family.

By the way, I would like one question answered for me, when did you make a conscious decision to be heterosexual? My guess is that you never had to make a conscious decision to be heterosexual, just as we never made a conscious decision to be LGBT.

Best Regards and may YOUR God have mercy on your soul!

The second one is by William Stoddart:

Right on, Dave.!!  I am in total agreement with your post comments.  There is absolutely no such thing as a, ‘GAY LIFESTYLE” anymore than there is a. “STRAIGHT LIFESTYLE.”   Homophobes delight in constantly using the word “lifestyle” as a part of their demagoguery.  To them “lifestyle” revolves entirely around whom a person is sexually attracted to.  I am positive that if you were to ask any straight male, “What kind of a lifestyle do you lead?”–that their solitaryanswer would not be, “I like to have sex with women.”  Any person’s sexual orientation is just one very small part of the tapestry which defines their life.  The homophobic use of the word “lifestyle” when referencing gays and lesbians is offensive and demeaning.  In a way it conveys the warped idea that all we think about, or do, 24 hours a day is to have sex.

Then, the equally offensive word constantly used by these homophobic evangelists is, “CHOICE..”   Scientific, medical, and biological studies have consistently concluded that being gay or lesbian is not a ‘CHOICE”—no more being born black, or being born with blue eyes is a ‘CHOICE”   Unfortunately, hard core homophobes, will never have the capacity to understand that sexual orientation IS NOT A CHOICE! It is the way are born.  Note that I did not use the phrase sexual ‘PREFERENCE”.   By sometimes using the word PREFERENCE instead of ORIENTATION, they intentionally confer the idea that we CHOSE to be the way we are.   When a homophobe engages me in their demented “choice” philosophy, I always ask them how they went about “choosing” to be straight?  I ask if they perhaps “flipped a coin.”   Or I may ask if they tried both types, and then decided that being intimate with a female felt the best. (kind of like trying on a pair of shoes)  Invariably, they are not able to explain why they are either going with, or married to a person of the opposite sex.  They will usually simply end the discussion with, “That’s just the way I am.”   So, if it’s so very easy for them to understand that “it’s just the way they are” why then is it so difficult for them to understand that our sexual orientation is, “just the way we are.”   If being gay or lesbian was truly a choice–there most likely would be none.   If it was simply a matter of choice, who would consciously choose to be gay—knowing in advance that they would face a life of constant ridicule and rejection?

Hopefully these articles are eye opening to you. Hopefully it helps you to see that homosexuality is something, although maybe not natural, isn’t a choice. Where do people get off thinking they can tell us to reject our innate urges and live a lie?

So I’ve been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins these past few weeks. It is a PROFOUND book that everyone, theists and atheists alike, should read. I’m only about half way done with it, but I found one part so interesting that I couldn’t not post it.

In Chapter 5: The Root of Religion, Dawkins talks about how religion most likely is a root of something else. He talks about Darwinian Group Selection (which he dismisses) and then talks about survival mechanisms. He said children are taught at a young age to listen to everything an adult tells them, no matter how ridiculous that is. His examples were: do not play on the freeway, do not eat unidentified red berries and do not swim in lakes with crocodiles. These all keep the children alive. In the same way, religious leaders (either in tribes or in modern society) are all authority figures to children so they believe what they are taught without question. This is why religion stays around.

Another interesting point was that militant religions are more likely to survive over pacifistic ones because militant religion (ie: Judaism, Christianity, Islam) are more likely to slaughter the peaceful tribes, convert them by force and indoctrinate them into their culture.

The most profound part of this chapter is that Dawkins tells about a “primitive” religion in Cameroon where they have strange beliefs about witches. A theologian commented how ridiculous this religion was which was ironic considering how ridiculous Christianity is if you remove yourself from our cultural programming concerning Christianity.

Here is a summary of equally (if not more) ridiculous mainstream Christian assertions:

1. In the time of the ancestors, a man was born to a virgin mother with no biological father being involved.
2. The same fatherless man called out to a friend called Lazarus, who had been dead long enough to stink, and Lazarus promptly came back to life
3. The fatherless man made himself come alive after being dead and buried three days.
4. Forty days later, the fatherless man went up to the top of a hill and then disappeared bodily into the sky.
5. If you murmur thoughts privately in your head, the fatherless man, and his ‘father’ (who is himself) will hear your thoughts and may act upon them. He is simultaneously able to hear the thoughts of everybody else in the world.
6. The fatherless man’s virgin mother never died but was ‘assumed’ bodily into heaven.
7. Bread and wine, if blessed by a priest (who must have testicles), ‘become’ the body and blood of the fatherless man.

Even Christians would deny these claims as completely ridiculous if they weren’t written down in a book. I mean really, what reasonable human being could believe this bull?

As an atheist raised in a Judeo-Christian household, I find this topic to be particularly interesting. As someone who watched all of the Dr. Dino videos in church as a kid, I am very familiar with a lot of the far-right “intelligent” design arguments (see http://www.drdino.com/). Without getting too political, I was horrified that so many schools in the bible belt (Southern US) were trying to get “intelligent” design put into schools, presenting religious dogma as science, especially during the presidency of George W. Bush. Creationism is NOT science and has no place in a science classroom; if presented in public schools, it should only be presented in a comparative religions class giving other religions equal emphasis. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not scientific theories because they do not follow the scientific method. They do not analyze data proving or disproving a hypothesis and they are not open to peer review. They must either be accepted or rejected. Intelligent Design is figuratively black or white whereas science has a lot of grey area and is constantly changing and correcting itself. To be objective, Intelligent Design in its most recent manifestation is finally at least making an effort to be loosely scientific. Creationists are now trying to disprove science, citing religious dogma as evidence, instead of using a completely faith-based approach. For instance at http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ they actually say that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the bible and is common sense regardless of what one’s religious beliefs are. When asked if creationist theory is the same as intelligent design, they reply “No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. (http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php)” One would have to question the truthfulness of this statement however, noting that “god”, “bible” and various pronouns for “god” are capitalized, implying that his site has a Judeo-Christian affiliation. Regardless, it is downright untrue for this website to call Intelligent Design a scientific theory.

A very interesting article validating my opinions is http://is.gd/2pBMP (link has been shortened), which was written by Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education. His ultimate conclusion is “Creationism is not just a legal failure. It is a scientific failure as well. Scan the scientific research literature: There are no signs that anyone is using creationism, whether as creation science or its newfangled form of intelligent design, to explain the natural world. In contrast, not a year passes without the appearance of thousands of scientific publications that apply, refine, and extend evolution (http://is.gd/2pBMP). “ Ultimately, thank your deity of choice that we have a supreme court that enforces the separation of church and state clause in our constitution. Otherwise the American education system would be even more flawed. Hopefully during his presidency, President Obama will make a difference in the science education throughout the US, especially in the Southern states, enforcing our laws requiring educators to acknowledge only evolution in the classroom.

It is a shame, in this day and time, especially in a place as liberal as California that Proposition 8 was upheld in court. I would think that everyone, even super conservative christian bigots would want others to be happy. Equality should be for everyone, unconditionally, not just for people who support the conservative agenda.

Cectic – Science Proves Noah.

HAHA. If there was any doubt evolution was far-left lies, here you go!

One World, Under God – The Atlantic (April 2009)

This is a fascinating new perspective on Jesus, Paul and Christianity from a Social Science and Evolutionary Psychology point of view.

I’m still a bit baffled by it, but it shines a whole new light on the evolution of Judeo-Islam-Christian religions and their rapid expansion.

Let me know what you think!