It is so tempting to point out a few little details, like while Christians from places like the Family Research Council like to claim that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia, there are also theories about child abuse victims becoming homosexuals. How about the theory that everyone is a homosexual at some point in life? Early on, children are attracted to individuals of the same gender, primarily to “learn” how to act as a normal member of said gender. (That theory can be considered a basis for the previous one on abuse victims – if one goes through that stage early in life, couldn’t abuse disrupt development beyond it? Or how about homosexuality as a “learned behavior” of children that were abused by individuals of the opposite gender?)

Too many questions, and too few definitive answers. Was the ruling really about protecting homosexuality, or was it about playing the probabilities that foster children (even very young ones) could have confusion about gender issues? Was it about hurting a good Christian couple, or protecting already abused children from inadvertent psychological damage from that same couple? Who knows? Maybe if we got some real answers to those questions about the relationship between child abuse (all kinds, not just sexual) and homosexuality, we could worry more about the rights of those good Christian people. For now? Maybe the Brits went too far, but the point that it’s not a “good” thing to teach damaged children intolerance regardless of the reason is legitimate.

Theoretically, this should be a bedrock passage that every Christian should know without being told. It is the sum total of the Ten Commandments in abbreviated form, since it theoretically would be impossible to break a single one if an individual actually lives by these words. And it invariably comes to my mind when faced with absolutely inconsiderate behavior of individuals that claim to be Christians.

But this is not about someone that just acted inconsiderately. This person takes the situation to an entirely different level. Placing a cross in one’s yard may be a statement of faith. Building a 24-foot illuminated cross in one’s front yard is much more than that, especially if one happens to build it in such a way that the lights shine into a neighbor’s house. It is even more questionable if that neighbor happened to lodge complaints against one for parking commercial vehicles in front of her home.

37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the great and first commandment.

39 And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

Matthew 22:37-39 (ASV)

Just a little hint – showing your “faith” in a way that disrupts your neighbors’ lives, and makes them feel that you are trying to intimidate them is not a good way to promote Christianity. It is an excellent way to encourage people to question the validity of religion.

Now, it is largely ruled by a desire to promote Christian values as rule of law. As a result of this, there is a great deal of hatred and intolerance in the wind, particularly where homosexuals are concerned. Hatred and intolerance are not Christian values, period. Blaming the theoretically sinful behaviors of others for whatever is wrong in this world is bluntly insane. There is no divine message being delivered.

The death of Tyler Clementi was a tragedy. I am pleased to see so many people taking time out to offer their condolences and prayers to his family on Facebook. However, the following is certainly an indictment against those that choose to twist Christian values to their own devices.

In Honor of Tyler Clementi all comments that seek to harass his tormentors, his family, or his memory will be removed from this page; all hate speech or comments that fail to respect the grieving communities will be removed from this page. This page will only be published and open for comments on a random basis, as a way to limit the hate-speech, and cruel, vulgar abuse that has swarmed it…

The real Christian value is the fact that the people involved with the maintenance of that Facebook page have not only forbidden hate speech against Tyler or gays, but also posts against the ones that tormented the young gentleman.

1. – The business of politics is dirty. This is not news, and was used as an argument against granting women the vote – we didn’t need to be concerning ourselves with all that filth when there was filth enough at home to clean! But for whatever reason, people selectively forget this when they get it in their heads to argue political points from a religious perspective. They forget that religion is meant to be sacred – decidedly not dirty. Just think to yourself, every time someone brings God to the political table, they’re smearing mud on what should be pure.

2. – Religion is personal. Sure, it’s been said that politics is personal. It’s a nice saying, but outside of the wonderful world of political junkies, it’s generally inaccurate. Most people do not live and breathe politics. However, religion is invariably personal. Yes, there is a limited number of religions out there, but the way those religions are observed (or not) is limited only by the number of people on this planet. There is even diversity of faith within any given religious organization. Suggesting that political bodies govern based on any religious precepts is the greatest attack on religious freedom. Suggesting that political bodies protect the rights of the people to observe their personal belief systems as they choose is the true way to guarantee Freedom of Religion.

3. – Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as secular morality. Anticipating the inevitable argument that religion is the basis of many laws, atheists are not necessarily immoral. They are capable of recognizing that there is good and bad in this world, and that it is a good thing to avoid doing bad things. Humans are generally moral creatures by nature, and while useful in encouraging people to be well-behaved, they do not “need” the threat of retribution from a mystical force to keep themselves in line. Earthly punishments are typically enough to keep most in line, and the ones that don’t seem to be able to follow the rules wouldn’t anyway. There’s a reason why serial killers and career criminals are called aberrations.

4. – Like men, all religions were created equal. This one has gotten me into quite a few arguments over the years, primarily because I do not hide the fact that I distrust all religions equally. Every religion has skeletons in its closet. Every religion has caused men to act in a negative manner at some point in its history – some still do. They have all been the source of war and death at one point or another. And it doesn’t matter “when” in that history atrocities have occurred for the sake of a given faith. The fact that it did occur once (or more times) means that a similar situation could happen again.

5. – No religion is “right” – no religion is “wrong”. On the purely theoretical level, there is no way to prove which faith is right or wrong. That is the very nature of faith – believing in something without the benefit of proof. People following religions are the ones doing right and wrong, but qualitative statements for or against any given religion based on the actions of the followers are an exercise in stupidity as well. See number two here. No matter how organized a given religion may be, there is no way to absolutely control all of the followers, period. There will always be someone that takes things too far, and does things that are contrary to the precepts of a given faith, typically through misinterpretation of sacred texts. We call it “radicalism”. If these people were doing what the majority of a given faith believe is “right”, then we wouldn’t bother pointing out that they were on the fringe, now would we? And to keep things fair, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all have radicals. I don’t typically come across ones from the last two, but I regularly get abuse from the first.

From the beginning, there has never really been any argument over the fact that Obama’s father was Muslim, and that Obama himself had attended a Muslim school for a short period of time in his early childhood. Today, ABC posits that there is a definite prejudice against Muslims when it comes to voters considering candidates for public office. Yes, this is the land of the free, and yes, we’re generally more tolerant than most other nations, but it’s been under a decade since 9/11. Ground Zero remains under construction, and there’s a heated debate on what should be done with the real estate surrounding it. We’re still at war with Al Qaeda, and there is no honest end in sight. Comparisons with Pearl Harbor have been made many times, so here we go again. Would anyone honestly be screaming that we’re intolerant bastards if we were against voting in individuals of Japanese descent to high ranking offices in the years following that bombing, particularly if WWII had dragged out much longer than it did?

Now, that addresses the general distrust of Muslims in general, justified or not. It’s the truth, ugly as it may be. As for the perception of Obama, I’ve been thinking for some time now that it’s not so much about thinking that he is actually a Muslim, as it is a matter of not perceiving him as a Christian. We are still being bombarded with stories of potential terrorist attacks by radical Muslims, and spent the last several years being spoonfed the concept that any Muslim can end up being twisted into a dangerous radical. (Ironically enough, that theory is most often supported by radical Christians, but I digress, or not…) Religion has been politicized severely since 2001, and sadly, it has nurtured a climate where Christians seem to be increasingly of the opinion that if you’re not obviously with them, you’re against them. If you’re against them, more likely than not, you’re Muslim (assuming you’re not just one of those evil atheists.) Since Obama doesn’t wear his faith on his sleeve, he’s not obviously with the Christians, so he must be what? Oh yeah, Muslim. Rewind to the previously known information about his father and his childhood, and there’s the likely root of most of the current rash of incorrect perceptions.

Politics is perception, and when people are silly enough to ignore that First Amendment separation of religion and politics, the perception of public officials’ religious beliefs become relevant to their political careers. (Yes, I know I didn’t say “church and state”, so don’t bother yelping about it. My standard answer for that is that the framers saw the folly in mixing faith and politics, and chose terms that fit their times, and mollified the more religious amongst them. Politics is filthy. Religion doesn’t deserve to be made dirty by it.)

Ground Zero is a grave, period. Anywhere near Ground Zero that was littered with debris – biological debris and debris from the planes in particular – should be considered hallowed ground, just as Ground Zero is. The only purpose for any of that property should either be purely secular, or in memory of those lost that day, period. Yes, the terrorists twisted their faith to fit their criminal designs, and in a perfect world, law-abiding citizens sharing their faith in the non-twisted form should have the right to observe it where they choose. But there is nothing wrong with questioning the motives of any religious organization seeking to build a place of worship on what is essentially the graves of others. It is not like a church that chooses to expand into its own cemetery.

So, that said, is there a minister in the house? The residents of New York City need your assistance. Please step forward, and exercise your right to observe your faith, and consecrate the hallowed ground surrounding Ground Zero.

Boobquake is one woman’s response to one cleric that found it necessary to suggest that the failure of women in his society to meet with his insane expectations is the root of natural disasters. Unfortunately for him, the American woman’s science won out on that portion of the debate. Scantily dressed women are not the cause of earthquakes. As for the contention that extra-marital sex is a cause… well, it probably isn’t a good idea to encourage testing of that principle. Wouldn’t want to be accused of inciting an orgy.

This penchant for blaming the ills of the world on irreligious behavior sadly isn’t limited to theocratic societies. It is just at its worst in them. However, while it may be tempting to simply marginalize statements like what the Iranian cleric said, his words should be taken as a cautionary tale. The only thing separating him from some of the people in our own country is the name of the deity he chooses to follow. Desire to control the actions of the masses in the name of religion is extremism, regardless which religion is being followed.