The Mosque Mess

I'm going to try my best to delve into this whole "should they build a mosque at Ground Zero" debate that seems to be going on. I'm not so sure how well I'm going to do with this, as it doesn't seem to be that difficult of a concept to wrap my head around. When something is that easy for me to understand, I always feel like I must be missing something. Yet, folks are all up in arms about it, and understandably so. Let's see what all the hubbub is about, shall we?

According to the Boston Herald, "A controversial mosque and Islamic center to be built some 600 feet from Ground Zero cleared its last legal hurdle this week, winning approval from New York’s Landmarks Preservation Commission." That's right. A group of folks headed by a one Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (pronounce any of those however you'd like) want to build a mosque a couple of blocks from where the World Trade Center used to stand and where almost three thousand people were killed as the result of "...the actions of a group of Islamic radicals.". As you can imagine, that idea isn't setting very well with folks.

People are upset. People want to prevent them from building a mosque there, saying that it's disrespectful, it's awful, etc. And they're right. It would appear to be all of those things and a whole hell of a lot more. But here's the thing: No matter how much we don't like it, there isn't anything we can do about it to prevent it from being built.

That whole First Amendment, you know, the one that makes this country freaking awesome? Yeah, that thing is exactly why nothing can be done and it's probably why nothing should be done. The First Amendment, for those who might be a little fuzzy on the text, reads "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." You can't just ignore that.

I wish that, instead of focusing on how much people dislike and abhor this idea, people would focus more on things like why in the world is it being built there of all freaking places? Yeah, yeah, I know that they have the land and that land in Manhattan is rather difficult to come by. I get that. That doesn't make it any more palatable. And it certainly doesn't make it any more justifiable.

Apparently, this project has a web site that the Boston Herald inexplicably does not link to. Oh, that's right. The media sucks. I forgot. But they do say "The Web site for the $100 million project says all the right things about its aims at bringing people of different faiths together and about honoring the memory of 9/11 victims." Hmm. Tell you what, mosque guys. How about you let us decide when we'd like to be brought together, OK? How about you help us honor the memory of the 09/11 victims by not building a mosque a couple of blocks away? How about that? I can't see how something this disrespectful is going to do anything other than strain relations between folks of different faiths. (And by "between folks of different faiths" I mean the mosque-goers and the non-mosque goers.)

I'm guessing because it doesn't have anything to do with any of that flowery crap that he was spouting. See, "He has repeatedly refused to disclose who is putting up the money for the project, although he told an Arab-language newspaper that such funding would come from the Middle East." Why wouldn't you disclose that, dude? Why the secrets? You expect people to be perfectly OK with this and not ask you questions? You expect people are going to be perfectly OK with this when you refuse to answer their questions about funding? This can't be good.

Obviously, this is just a kick in the head of the American people. They could build this thing anywhere they wanted to, but they're not. And I think that they're not because it's their way of letting us know that they're here and they're not going away. And as the United States, we have to allow that, as that is what our Constitution guides us to do. Now, I keep hearing the argument or the point or whatever they want to call it about Pearl Harbor. Basically, would we have let the Japanese build some sort of Shinto shrine or temple next to the USS Arizona? It kind of sounds valid, but I don't think that it really is when the context of how it's being argued is used.

See, the Japanese would not have built a temple next to the USS Arizona. You know why not? Because we kicked their ass, that is correct. We not only kicked their ass, we obliterated it. Twice. We haven't kicked anyone's ass in retaliation for 09/11. Oh, sure. We invaded a country that had nothing to do with it and deposed of their dictator who was eventually executed. We've been traipsing around the God-forsaken rocks of Afghanistan for a while without a lot of success. (But that's only because success hasn't been defined yet. As soon as it's defined, I'm sure that we'll have fallen incredibly short. But until then, we'll just stay vague about the degree of success which we may or may not have achieved.)

If someone's ass had been kicked over 09/11, you can bet that there wouldn't be any mosque building going on that close to Ground Zero. They're doing it simply because they can and, more importantly, because they want to. They want to appear the martyr in this situation. They want to have rationale for all of their twisted logic under Islamic law and Sharia law. And since we operate under our Constitution, we have to allow them to do so.

I don't know what would be better; to civilly protest this thing or to stay quiet about this thing. Legally, nothing can be done and nothing should be done. Legal action for something like this would point the country in a direction that I'm not so sure you really want it to go in. In fact, I'm positive you don't. But would a lack of attention be better in this case? I don't know. I just know that people need to take their emotions out of the issue. I realize that is damn near impossible for some. But we can't go around making decisions based on feelings. (Look at California's freaking financial situation. The state is swimming in expensive "feel good" programs. It doesn't work to legislate with feelings.) That just doesn't work.

moreless

The Crucification of Common Sense

Do trends start here in America and are picked up by the folks over in Europe or do the trends start in Europe and are picked up by the folks over here in America? Either way, there's a scary one that has reared it's head and the outrage seems not as much as I would have expected. I don't know if it's due to complacency or idiocy, but I fear the latter.

According to our friends across the pond at The Telegraph "....seven judges in Strasbourg said the display of Christian crosses, which is common but not mandatory in Italian schools, violated the principle of secular education and might be "disturbing" for children from other faiths." Wait. What now?

Correct. Apparently, Italian schools frequently have some sort of crucifix hanging somewhere in the classroom. So how distracting are these crucifixes? (Or is it crucifii?) From what I can tell, these crucifixes are not life sized replicas of the one in which Jesus (allegedly) used. No, they seem to be small and able to be affixed to the walls of said classrooms. They don't seem to light up, be aflame, make noise or do anything other than simply hang there. Hmmm. It seems odd that this would be a problem, doesn't it? When you learn how this idiotic case came to be in front of the seven judges of the apocalypse, it's really not so odd at all.

See, this is the result of a lawsuit that was brought about by an atheist woman, a one Soile Lautsi, "...who complained that her children had to attend a state school in northern Italy which had crucifixes in every classroom." Um, I don't think they did. They had to attend a state school which had crucifixes (I guess crucifii is out!) in every classroom? Let's think about this for just a moment, shall we?

Let's assume that the entire school is just riddled with crucifixes. That would seem to indicate that the school has a certain way of thinking about things. They're big on the crucifix! The entire school would join the crucifix's Fan Page on Facebook if there was one. (Please don't tell me if there is. I just cannot handle any more weirdness.) I don't know if she should be so concerned about the crucifix being in the classroom if it's put there out of a belief in Jesus Christ dying upon that symbol as a way to save the rest of us from out sins. Thus, why is this about the symbol and not about the ideology? Because this pain in the ass woman is an atheist, that's why.

In defense of atheists that I know, y'all are wonderful people. Y'all are brilliant people! I have no problem with your beliefs. But can I ask if there's anything that you can do to reel in people like the cuckoo bird that created the swirling maelstrom of s***? Anything? Because it's people like her who really give all atheists a bad name. (Actually, it's people like her who give all human beings a bad name, but I digress.)

If this woman doesn't want her children attending the school with all of the crucifixes in it, what say she put her children in a different school? What say she home school them? Now, I realize that by her home schooling them, they're likely to turn out just as nutso as she is and that would be unfortunate. I get that. But I am SO over having everything being altered because ONE person claims to be offended.

According to the P.O.S. ruling, "The presence of the crucifix could be ... disturbing for pupils who practised other religions or were atheists, particularly if they belonged to religious minorities." Wait. What? "Could be"?? Could? Do they mean "might"? Might? As in "Monkeys might fly out of my arse." (They're not gonna, but they might!) THAT kind of "might"? Lots of things might happen. Does that mean that we need to start changing everything that everyone (sans one moron) is perfectly OK with? I don't think it does! Then again, I'm not some 200 year old judge in Italy, apparently.

Lady, I've got news for you. Your kids are going to need to learn to ignore more outside influences in their life than simply a damn crucifix hanging on a wall. I love it when these rulings come out and they are always, without a doubt, always totally vague on HOW the disturbance might occur. And in the case of the atheist versus the crucifix, I don't see how the disturbance could occur. See, the crucifix is a religious symbol that is rooted in the belief in God. If you don't believe in God, the crucifix means nothing. How can you be offended by something that means nothing to you that you don't believe in? Are they also offended by pictures of ghosts and goblins at Halloween? Those don't exist, yet I'm sure that there are representations of those displayed prominently during the Halloween season. How are ghosts and goblins any different than a crucifix when it comes to being an atheist? I don't see that there is a difference. All I see is that this woman is still a pain in the ass.

I don't understand why her relocating to someplace that was more accommodating to her belief system was not an option. Oh, wait. She did relocate. She is Finnish and possesses Italian citizenship! Was she unaware of the overly Catholic influence throughout Italy when she moved there?! I find that hard to believe and yet she moved there anyway. It must not have bothered her enough to go there on purpose. To live! And wait a minute! The Finnish flag is just a sideways crucifix (minus the dead Jesus, of course)! Has she sued Finland as well?! It might offend someone that it's a sideways crucifix! (It probably would offend someone to know that Jesus was missing as well!)

I also don't understand why things that "might" happen are supposed to dictate our actions. And finally, I really don't understand exactly what in the hell would happen to her kids if they had to continue to go to school with a crucifix hanging on the wall. It's not like they're making them carry some 10-foot wooden crucifix across the playground every day at recess (though I personally would have rather done that than had to endure another game of Dodge Ball). Good luck, Italy! You're going to need it! (But quick! Someone put that Jesus bobblehead doll on the bus!)

(Side note: I'd like to thank my friend Patty for bringing this lunacy to my attention. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a wall that I need to go finish banging my head against.)

moreless

Halloween Crackpots

Ah, yes. Leave it to the wingnut crackpots in the tele-evangelical scam profession to use Halloween to make up a bunch of crap and spread it around claiming it's the word of Jesus. Granted, I don't know with 100% certainty that the particular crap I'm about to mock here is not the word of God and/or Jesus, but I'm 99.99% sure that it's not. (I'm saving that .01% just to ensure that I won't go to hell for this. Hedge your bets. That's what I always say.)

A one Kimberly Daniels wrote a Halloween column as a Guest Writer for CBN. CBN stand for the Christian Broadcasting Network. It's one of your typical mass evangelical organizations which take from the poor in order to make themselves rich and do so under the guise of it being for God or Jesus (both of whom I highly doubt authorized any of it). If you haven't already thought of it by now, think Jim and Tammy Faye Taker. I mean Faker. I mean Bakker! Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Sheesh. Talk about subliminal typing. Her post was entitled "The Danger of Celebrating Halloween". Now I should have guessed that it wouldn't be about some real danger like creepy people who always look like they're wearing a costume or unwrapped candy that had metal shards poking out of it. No, her column was about fake danger. That is to say, not danger at all.

I will give her this: It was one of the most unintentionally hilarious articles I have read in quite some time! She starts off by explaining the etymology of the word "Halloween" and concluding that it's the day of service for Lucifer. I don't know about you, but I don't share my candy with anyone and that includes this Lucifer fellow (who kinda looks like Wolverine in that photo there). But wait! There's more!

What about things like "Decorating buildings with Halloween scenes, dressing up for parties, going door-to-door for candy, standing around bonfires and highlighting pumpkin patches"? Do you ever participate in any of those activities around or on Halloween? If so, you should know that they "...are all acts rooted in entertaining familiar spirits. All these activities are demonic and have occult roots." Ah, yes. Decorating buildings. A sure sign of Satan at work. What the hell, woman?! Pumpkin patches?! Demonic?? Tell me something, are these demonic pumpkin patches ONLY demonic AT Halloween time? Or are they demonic all year 'round? I don't see how they could only be seasonally demonic, so they must be demonic all year 'round. Thus, she is clearly calling to an end of all pumpkin harvesting, growing and any other pumpkin related activity which takes place in a patch. (I can only assume that the poor woman who wrote this has had her mind riddled with syphilis. It's the only way to explain such completely baseless thoughts and assertions.)

She insists that we know "the truth". And what is that? Well, "The truth is that these demons that have been presented as scary cartoons actually exist. I have prayed for witches who are addicted to drinking blood and howling at the moon." I, too, have prayed for those howling at the moon. I have prayed for them to shut the hell up, as I am usually trying to sleep during said howling. Can't they howl during the day when most folks are awake? It would really be less disruptive if they could. And where does one meet these "witches who are addicted to drinking blood"? Is there some sort of group or meeting for that? If so, why in the hell is she going there?

She also gives us a list of the "secret" activities that go on during Halloween. I was guessing that they would sort of be like the "secret" menu at In and Out Burger. You know, the kind of "secret" that everyone knows, but that just isn't publicly displayed? Nope. This stuff that she came up with really is a secret because I can't imagine that any of these things actually happen (which is probably why no one knows about them). Let's run the list, shall we? Ahem...behold!

The word "occult" means "secret." The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes. These activities include:

Sex with demons
Orgies between animals and humans
Animal and human sacrifices
Sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood
Rape and molestation of adults, children and babies
Revel nights
Conjuring of demons and casting of spells
Release of "time-released" curses against the innocent and the ignorant.

Um, well. I don't rightly know what to say. Sex with demons? Come on! I've had sex with some very questionable individuals in my time, but I'd hardly go as far as to say that they were demons! Animal & human orgies? You folks need help! I don't know if you need God or Jesus, but some help you could definitely use. Casting of spells? I suppose if you believe in that sort of thing that it would be concerning. However, if you're not so much into the casting of spells, who gives a crap. Cast away! Can I polish your cauldron for you? Weirdos. Ooh-Ooh!! But those "time released" curses against the ignorant? Could you tell me how to do those? I'm really interested in that aspect of these demonics. In fact, that would come in quite handy for me in my day to day life, really.

But here is my absolute favorite claim that she makes. "During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches."

Um, I don't think it has. Sorry. I just don't. Dedicated and prayed over by witches...how? Like, are these witches employed by the candy companies? Hershey's? M&M-Mars? The folks who make the glorious, glorious Reese's? Are you telling me that they employ witches to "dedicate and pray" over their batches of candy? Are they year 'round employees or just seasonal? (Is there a benefit package? What are their hours? Are uniforms involved? Do they have name tags?) And how exactly does said dedication and pray-ation occur? I'm picturing the witches being hung in some sort of harness and just swung all over the production lines like some sort of wayward pendulum. Maybe they have a wand, perhaps a scepter, but there is definite cackling involved! Eye of newt, tongue of frog, that sort of chanting probably accompanies all of the scepter waving. It really sounds like quite a distraction for the other employees who do not get to swing from suspended cables. I would be distracted.

Halloween is Halloween. I plan on handing out demonic, prayed over candy and I might just stand by a bonfire or two just to really give the devil a good ol' temptin'! Place all of the curses and spells you want upon me, but I don't want to know a damn thing about anyone's sex with demons. Don't ask, don't tell. That's my Halloween motto from here on out.

moreless