From Larry Wohlgemuth…

Even the most militant atheist must admit that the words of Jesus are good lessons by which to live. Who can argue with honesty, charity, and love for your brother? It’s a perfect plan for living, but so few are doing it.

When you hear the words that come out of their mouths, the only conclusion you can reach is that they’re illiterate, because obviously they’ve never read the Gospels of Jesus. It’s wisdom upon which to build a rock solid foundation for a moral life.

Today, churches are likely to be seething cauldrons of anger and hatred towards the least fortunate. It makes you wonder if Jesus isn’t coming back simply because he doesn’t want to associate with his followers. It’s no wonder that people are leaving the church in droves.

It begs the question, how can people take such a beautiful plan for living and turn it into something that’s despised by just about everyone else?

Honestly, anyone who’s been to a fundamentalist Christian church understands that they’re several genes short of a full DNA strand. It’s not a particularly bright nor literate population with which we’re dealing, so the expectation that they’ve read the Gospels for themselves is slim. That means they’re relying on preachers, many with questionable pasts and personal agendas, to receive the message.

Now that that rant is over…

Understanding his audience and realizing that for the most part his parables were falling on deaf ears, Jesus retooled his message and boiled it down to two simple commandments:

He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ~ Luke 10:29

Just in case they couldn’t remember the story of the good Samaritan or to hand over their cloaks, Jesus made it real simple. Love your neighbor as yourself. How could you possibly misinterpret this simple instruction?

I knew a big Rush Limbaugh fan, and I was over at his house on the day after Freddie Mercury, lead singer for the band Queen, died from AIDS. Every time Limbaugh came back from a break he played Queen’s song, “Another One Bites the Dust.” After the third time I mentioned that this was a particularly heartless and cruel attitude, and my friend just laughed.

He said that Freddie Mercury, and all gays, got what they deserved for being homosexual. He explained that it was important for Christians to let these people die rather than to help them, in order to save their immortal souls. Some radio preacher had convinced him that all homosexuals were going to hell, and the only way to love them was to treat them so brutally that they would repent their sins and find their way to the Lord.

This radio preacher had bestowed upon him the ability to determine who was bound for hell and who should be treated with Christian “tough love.” Over time the number of people who needed this new form of Christianity expanded to abortion doctors and women who had abortions, people on welfare, and any other group with which my friend disagreed. These preachers appealed to his dark side, and he willingly obliged.

This is fairly representative of the fundamentalist Christian movement today.

This happens when the Scriptures are taken out of context, however people that desire to hate will find a way to do it, Jesus or no Jesus. So the Jesus of the Bible, the one who urged people to live communally and to care for one another, lives no more in these churches. He’s been replaced by his evil twin, the one who was on the side of the money changers and the Roman emperors while his brother died on the cross.

It began right after Nicaea in 325 A.D., when men like St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas developed the Just War Doctrine. It wasn’t long before that led to the Christian Crusades against Islamic countries, and the Spanish Inquisition where Christians turned on their own kind.

Then along came men like Martin Luther and John Calvin and the doctrine of sola fide, or by faith alone are you saved. The atrocities of Protestants subsequent to this were no less than those prior bad acts by the Roman Catholic Church.

What would Jesus say about all this? That heretical radical who ordered his men to put down their swords as the Roman guards came to arrest him. What would he say about the millions of American soldiers who are dispatched to foreign lands to slaughter people still living in huts? And how would he feel about the churchmen who convince their parishioners that it’s God’s will?

Though I sometimes find militant atheists just as tedious as fundamentalist Christians, it’s hard not to cheer for them in the battles they wage against Christianity. Ultimately, however, what this will require of us is to cast off the artificial divides created to keep us from understanding our true nature. That so many can be controlled by so few is not their fault, rather it’s ours. We’ve allowed them to convince us of our individuation rather than our unification.

We allow unscrupulous men to distort and magnify the miniscule differences between us, and use them to frighten us that our very way of life is ending. We take arms and travel to the corners of the planet to stamp out the latest “threat,” all because we look for differences and not similarities.

People in Russia, Iran and the Sudan all want the same things as you and me, and that’s to find love, get married and raise children hopefully to have a better life than did they. They don’t sit around all day despising our freedoms, rather I imagine unless we’re in their country shooting and bombing them, they scarcely give us a second thought. That the self-proclaimed followers of Jesus cannot see this gives us an insight into the extent of the sickness in their souls, and we should minister them as would the Christ. Since they cannot figure out the true path for themselves, they must be shown.

It’s time for unification, to realize our differences pale compared to our similarities, and to accept every man and woman as our brothers and sisters. It’s time for a kumbayah moment. What’s ironic is it’s the followers of the Christ that need to be shown rather than being the ones demonstrating. I think Jesus would vomit in his mouth if he knew the condition of his church today.

While politicians, military leaders and entertainers come and go throughout history, religious figures last for all time, millions still following, respecting or worshiping them thousands of years after their deaths. The list below does not just include what theologians would call prophets, but also lists figures who had a significant impact on real world religiosity.  The placing of Jesus Christ of Nazareth at number one and the Prophet Mohammad of Mecca at number two was based solely on the numbers of followers, and not because of one being less or more important than the other. Putting together a list like this will invite both controversy and emotion, but it is not the intention to annoy, bother or insult anyone. It is simply a look back on those who have most shaped our ideas about faith, religion and secular thought throughout the ages of humanity.

1. Jesus of Nazareth (circa 7 BCE-36 CE)

With more than 1.5 billion followers worldwide, Christianity remains the largest single religion on Earth, and is why Jesus of Nazareth sites atop the poll. Even if it wasn’t the largest religion, however, it is beyond serious debate the impact this itinerant rabbi from Galilee has had on the planet. What is especially remarkable about this is that his public ministry lasted little more than two years, he never had more than a few thousand followers during his lifetime, he left no personal writings, and was even executed for sedition by the Roman authorities, all of which should have made him little more than a footnote in history.

2. Prophet Mohammed of Mecca (571-632 CE)

It’s hard to underestimate the impact this middle-aged merchant turned mystic turned religious leader turned military commander has had on history and the role he continues to play in the lives of well over a billion people around the planet. Considered by one sixth of the world’s population to have been the last and greatest of all the prophets, he is best remembered as the man who penned the Koran, one of the best known and most widely read sacred writings in the world.

3. Gautama Buddha (circa 563-483 BCE)

We tend to use the term “Buddha” as a metaphor for spiritual enlightenment or wisdom, but there was a real flesh-and-blood person behind the mythology. Siddhartha Gautama ideas of enlightenment and nirvana thrived in his own day. Quickly attracting a legion of disciples, his teachings laid the foundation for one of the world’s great eastern faith structures, Buddhism, which as of this writing claims nearly 400 million adherents worldwide.

4. Krishna (circa 3228-3102 BCE)

Like the Buddha, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between historical fact and metaphor when it comes to some of the most ancient religious figures. Though Krishna didn’t actually found the modern religion of Hinduism—it’s basic tenets already being in place prior to his arrival—among all of the Vishnu avatars, he is the most popular and the one closest to the heart of the people, which is why he remains so venerated five thousand years later.

5. Confucius (551-479 BCE)

Confucius (the Latinized version of his Chinese name, Kong Zi) was not a religious leader per se, but more of a philosopher whose teachings on personal and governmental morality, justice, and sincerity deeply influenced Chinese, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese thought and life.

6. Zoroaster (Unknown. Anywhere between the 18th and 6th centuries BCE)

Zoroaster, also called Zarathustra, was an ancient Persian prophet who founded the first historically acknowledged world religion known, not surprisingly, as Zoroastrianism. According to the Zend Avesta, the sacred book of Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through Judaism and Platonism and has even been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.

7. Martin Luther (1483-1546)

While Christianity is wrought with dozens of individuals who played a major role in shaping its doctrines and making it the faith structure it is today, few men had a greater impact upon the fragmenting the church in general than this fiery German theologian from Eisleben.

8. Moses (circa 1391-1271 BCE)

While the history of Judaism is filled with famous prophets and leaders-from Kings David and Solomon to the prophets Elijah and Ezekiel—no one man had more impact than did Moses, without whose guidance and leadership the modern Jewish religion would not exist.

9. Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844)

Easily one of the most controversial figures from the first half of the nineteenth century, it is difficult to imagine how one man, persuaded that he was a prophet of God, could start a religion—the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (officially the LDS but commonly referred to as the Mormon church)—practically single-handedly, that would one day grow to over fourteen million worldwide followers.

10. Mary Baker Eddy (1821-1910)

Though the founder of Christian Science doesn’t have all that many followers any more (only around 30,000 or so as of late) her impact on American religious beliefs in the nineteenth century cannot be underestimated. Her controversial perspectives on everything from the illusory nature of the material world to her de facto rejection of a personal God and the concept of hell definitely put her somewhat outside of what is usually referred to as “orthodoxy”, though many of her ideas survive and can still be found in some New Age churches and other metaphysical and mystical traditions today

Source: Toptenz.net

How would you react if you saw a Muslim woman being mistreated in a store, not being served purely because of what she was wearing and the religion she follows?

ABC’s news magazine Primetime posed this very question and with the help of hidden cameras conducted a little experiment. The results are interesting to watch and at times, highly emotional. They show that while some Americans are prejudiced, most aren’t. The minority of those involved in the experiment who supported prejudiced behavior don’t realize North American culture as a whole is very much the New World, a civilization built upon the pillars of immigration and secular thought.

The following is a letter that was sent to the church of which I was once considered a member.

To Whom It May Concern,

My name is Kyle Brady, and I’m writing to you for a very specific purpose: to be stricken from any and all registries, local and otherwise, that shows me as a Catholic.

As an intelligent, thoughtful, and highly aware individual, I long ago renounced my religion for atheism, somewhere around a decade ago. Now that I’m 22 years old and my opinion on the absolutely ludicrous belief in some higher, supreme power has not only failed to change, but grown stronger as I delve ever-deeper into the reality of science and mathematics and seen the horrors that religion is the fundamental source of, I can no longer rationalize my inclusion in Vatican statistics for worldwide believers. No matter how small my single existence on such a massive list may be, if there are more like me who choose to renounce Catholicism for the more intelligent choice, that statistically impressive membership number eventually grows smaller and the draw of the Church shrinks.

Between the behavior of the Pope (massive hypocrisy and criminal activity), the behavior of priests (disgusting criminality and fear mongering), and the behavior of believers (persecution of others in the name of their so-called god), I find it difficult to see religion as a source of hope, good, or change. The only members of the religious community that I still hold respect for are the Jesuits, who have been called the scientists of Christianity for their emphasis on learning and rationality, and even they were once not considered friends of the Church – why should I be any different? There’s no-one to blame for the loss of my former faith besides the very religion you serve.

I fully expect that I will be removed from any and all lists, registries, and otherwise databases, and that I will no longer be considered, in any fashion, a Catholic by anyone within the Church.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

While the so-called “9/11 mosque”, which is actually instead an Islamic community center, has merits on both sides of the conversation regarding its existence, the conversation should not even be occurring, let alone at the level or with the furor that it currently holds. The simple answer to the situation is Freedom of Religion, via the Constitution’s 1^st Amendment, and that should be enough to silence any of the ludicrous commentary.

Except it apparently isn’t.

There are two core problems that are either confusing or enlarging the issue: a Republican interest in psychotic, election-cycle pandering, and fundamental misrepresentation. It would be slightly more understandable for people to be upset if a traditional-style mosque were opening at the very foot of the fallen towers, but the basic fact is that it’s a community center, no different than a Y with a different religious bent, that’s going inside of a former warehouse. There will be no spires, no minarets, no calls to prayer – none of the traditional items associated with Islamic properties. More importantly, however, is that it is not as close to the World Trade Center as is being portrayed: a few blocks, yes, but bringing such an institution to an area of strip clubs, sex toy shops, and other not-so-Christian-values enterprises is not quite the outrageous event that is being put forth.

The overwhelming problem, however, is one of Constitutionality. As a nation, the United States promotes religious freedom, and has since its founding – why should that be subject to geographical location, local proximity, or specific religions? A small group of fundamentalist individuals with extreme views of their religion has caused great trauma and havoc, but they do not represent their religion, as has been proclaimed so often since the events of September 11^th, 2001 by Muslims worldwide. True that there are those who believe their religion justifies such acts of terror and aggression, but this mindset of justified abhorrent behavior is not limited to Islam – are all Christians held accountable for the slaughtering seen during the Crusades? Are all Germans held responsible, presently, for the actions of a dictator half a century ago?

Islam is merely an extension of Christianity, and yet it’s demonized as some sort of inhuman belief system, especially by those of fervent Christian belief – there is deep irony in the persecution of Islams at the hand of Christians in the United States, because some of the very reasons for the founding of the United States having ties to religious freedom. The 1^st Amendment delivers freedom of religion to all religions and all individuals within the United States, not just selectively chosen groups of people or religious sects, and believing otherwise belies an arrogance and ignorance that is simply unacceptable.

The fact that this is even an issue points to the motives of those arguing against the building of the community center: elections. Republicans are currently in the process of pandering to their extreme base, made even more extreme by the laughable Tea Party, which involves, essentially, the subjugation of any and all cultures and people that aren’t white – Arizona’s racist attempt at immigration law, a scramble to modify or repeal the 14^th Amendment, the Manhattan Islamic center, and various other behaviors of the last year have proven this quite staunchly. After the elections in November, Republicans will have no interest in touching the 14^th Amendment, walking all over the 1^st Amendment, or participating in any other actions that will essentially frame their party as one of an anti-Constitution, anti-minority, pro-white ideology – at least until the next election cycle. This coming from the party that believes, wrongly and without evidence, that President Obama is “walking all over” the Constitution, even while they attempt to do so.

Build the Islamic community center in Manhattan – there’s no reason not to, unless those reasons include racism, religious discrimination, or political pandering.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From Saudi Arabia Corespondent Eman Al Nafjan…

Ok I took a break and I learned something about myself. I’m a polygamist, I’ve married this blog over the father of my children and now I’m attached to it and cannot stay away too long from my spoiled second husband, let alone two months. If I try, I just miss it more. I knew it all along but I had to give it a try.

Now that’s out of the way, I have to tell you what I was up to last night. My very dear friend Tine has finished her time here in Saudi and is leaving soon. Unfortunately, being cooped up in expat compounds; she has never had a chance to see muttawas in action. These lions of Saudi morality are a staple mark of life here so I couldn’t let her leave without the experience. That’s why we went on a muttawa safari. We headed to their natural habitat, shopping malls. And we weren’t disappointed. At Riyadh Gallery, a mall that opened about a couple of years ago, they had the World Cup match on this humongous TV screen that you can watch a mile away. I’m not exaggerating; people on all three floors were watching the same screen. There were about three hundred people there.. Halfway through the match the muttawa came in and ordered the TV off. There were two muttawas and one police officer escorting them. They strolled around this crowd searching for men without women. Because it is illegal for single men to go to a shopping mall. They have to be accompanying a wife, mother or sister. Every once in a while they would stop young Saudi men and ask them where their women were. One guy they didn’t believe had to drag a little girl over to the muttawas so she could verify that he was related to the group of women he pointed at.

Before the muttawas came in it was noisy and men and women stood next to each other looking up at the screen. At every highlighted moment in the match there was either a collective roar or groan. The atmosphere was electric. Then the muttawas came and everyone knew that these three men had come in long before seeing them stroll by. Even Tine remarked on how these muttawas must be feeling this power they had over the people. No one objected to having the match turned off. Women went scurrying off to find seats in segregated areas. Teenagers headed the opposite direction that the muttawas were coming from for fear that they would be stopped because of their hairstyles and low worn jeans. Everyone was silently glancing around, looking for the muttawas and guessing who their victims might be.

We decided to follow them, albeit from afar to see who would they take. They focused their energy on young Saudi men. They even went into the bathrooms looking for hiding offenders. Before we lost them, we had witnessed them apprehend two men. They made the two offenders come along as they continued with their morality raid.

Both Tine and I were angered by how passive people were. It’s as if they really believed that they were guilty of something. Hundreds of people shaking in fear of a couple of bearded men. No wonder that things remain the way they are. People believe they deserve to be treated this way. It took the muttawas about twenty minutes to finish their raid and just like when they came in, you knew that they left. The match was turned back on and everyone relaxed and became noisy again.

Before they left, I took Tine outside to show her how arrogant muttawas are even in the way they park. And sure enough, their jeep was parked on the pavement right next to the automatic doors. You would think they were an ambulance.

Sarah Palin may be an unemployed, Facebook abusing, gaffe-prone idiot, but it seems as if she has, by accident and without knowing, stumbled across something she has a valid position on: the mosque proposal in New York City, close to Ground Zero .

Essentially, there’s been a proposal for the equivalent of a Muslim activity center – a mosque with restaurant, entertainment facilities, and more – to be built mere blocks from the site of the World Trade Center destruction, which has, as could be expected, received immediate, kneejerk reactions from both sides of the argument. Those of a conservative, oft-racist, persuasion have jumped on the fact that this is a Muslim center and not one of their own Christian brand, as if simply being of the Islamic faith was an affront to Americanism and disrespecting the lives of the dead from 9/11. Similarly, those of the liberal, oft-too-open, political flavor have done quite the opposite and used the proposal as a weapon of peaceful propaganda, claiming that it would cater to moderate Muslims, despite a valid argument that there is no such middleground option in Islam, and it would show that America holds nothing against those that did not declare war upon the nation.

The problem is that neither side is correct – both have legitimate and defensible positions, which is especially odd in the modern polar political climate.

In terms of arguing against the mosque’s existence so close to Ground Zero, there are mountains of evidence that Islamic centers of prayer, and those that run them, played large roles in the attacks of September 11^th, 2001 and continue to do so, even within America’s borders. The 9/11 hijackers sought solace, solidarity, and support in various mosques, on both coasts, and the more recent terrorist attempts, such as the failed Times Square Bomber, have had similar aid – a careful reading of Steve Coll’s “Ghost Wars”, James Bamford’s “The Shadow Factory”, and a number of other investigative journalism efforts on the topic make this quite clear. Even now, a decade later, those that support the subjugation, injury, or death of non-Muslims, due to either American citizenship or Jewish heritage/faith, can find sympathetic persons for their cause across the country. Since the Islamic faith, if interpreted in a semi-strict fashion, allows for no religion other than its own and calls for the death of all Jews, this is a serious issue, especially as fundamentalism sweeps the ranks of Muslims worldwide.

That being said, not all Muslims are terrorists or wish harm upon the Western World – this is a fact that should be inherently understood by rational individuals worldwide. The terrorist attacks of September 11^th were carried out by fundamentalist Muslims with disgruntled attitudes and a brainwashed perspective, and did not, nor do they currently, represent the opinions of all Muslims, just as the Catholic Pope does not speak for all Catholics. In a fit of panic, there were some unintelligent, embarrassingly stereotyping decisions made in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it can be argued that America has, on the whole, returned to its more rational state. Mosques are not the places of evil and fundamentalism that they are so often made out to be, most especially within the borders of the United States – they should not be pigeonholed as centers of evil to be banned, harassed, or discriminated against.

Thus arrives the crux of the problem: both sides of this argument have a point. A mosque so close to the ashes of the World Trade Center would undoubtedly send a message of tolerance and forgiveness to Muslims, but it could just as easily serve as an inspiration-by-proximity center fostering anti-American sentiment, so there is no easy answer to this permit request. None of this, however, was intended by the loudmouth embarrassment that is Sarah Palin – her words were simply meant in the racist, derogatory, and unacceptably judgmental manner in which she presented them. That she touched upon so salient a point by accident is a fantastic coincidence, but it does nothing to make the issue any less politically or socially relevant.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

From Larry Wohlgemuth…

I love to take shots at fundies because of their big-headed belief in their omniscience. It’s so unbecoming. Now atheists are giving fundies a run for the number one spot on my list. Their increasingly vocal claims that ‘there is no God’ comes across just as dogmatically as the fundie that predicts eternity in hell unless we follow their prescribed plan for salvation. Polar opposite twins.

I’m not sure where these militant atheists who demand I believe as they do are coming from, but I welcome anything that provides me more material. I can mock the self-proclaimed all-knowing no matter what their beliefs. However it begs the question, what’s happening to atheists and why are they becoming increasingly outspoken?

For any who may not know my position, you can worship mountain oysters as your God if you wish, I really don’t care what you believe. I understand my beliefs are what they are; beliefs and nothing more. While I try to live by them I’ll likely pull the big kackaroo only to learn the extent of my fallibility. Maybe there will be some tiny part that I got right, however my shortcomings don’t scare me nor do I anticipate an eternity of torment for my error; it’s just another lesson.

However I have to speak up about something I’ve observed recently that’s happening in atheism, mostly made up of people that once seemed extremely comfortable in their own skins. I noted in an online discussion the other day another indication of the increasingly fundamentalist atheist meme that more than implied the rest of us should change for our own good.

A woman stated that all who held religious viewpoints were insane and that science was the only true answer. Did she mean the science that bled us with leeches to cure disease, or that refused to believe in things unseen, causing countless deaths due to postsurgical infections because physicians wouldn’t wash their hands? Maybe she referred to the research grant whores who’ve propped up industries like tobacco in return for large sums of money, or the thousands of scientists who wrongly predicted a global cooling disaster and impending Ice Age in the 1970s. I’ll give more credence to science when they can at least replicate the feat of building the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Another guy was arguing in favor of the Golden Rule. Did he understand its origin was religiously based, with the first documented instance being 5000 years ago?

“This is the sum of duty. Do not unto others that which would cause you pain if done to you.”
– Mahabharata 5:1517, from the Vedic tradition of India,
circa 3000 BC.

A woman interjected the possibility that the way you want to be treated is not the way I would like to be treated. Taking her valid retort a step further, what if I want to be treated merely as a faceless cog in a society-driven machine, then wouldn’t the Golden Rule demand I labor to ensure that you are treated similarly? It would be a recipe for disaster for a society that applied it literally, but this man was just as intent on forcing his belief on me as any fundie I’ve encountered.

Maybe a good place to start would be with the definition of atheism:

a•the•ism –noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

This definition is from Dictionary.com, but several others were the same; each using the word belief, disbelief or both in their characterizations, and isn’t that the crux of the matter? When you come down to it, when all is said and done, atheism is simply a belief. Now maybe I’m wrong and they have some proof, so I’ll give them an opportunity to present it here.

Waiting.

Still waiting.

That’s what I thought. They can’t prove their position any more than the fundies can prove theirs, or I can prove mine, ergo the word belief. The only time beliefs become dangerous is when one group tries to foist theirs onto others, which inevitably results in violence. I see that possibility in both religious fundamentalism and the growing militancy in atheism. Maybe we should all take a breath.

In case anyone is interested, or even cares, this is how far I’ve gotten. If I see a chocolate cake sitting on the counter then I know a baker is somewhere to be found; I don’t have to see her to know she exists. The fact of creation demands that there be a creator in my thinking. Beyond that I’ve taken various religious, philosophical and metaphysical concepts and cobbled them into a sustaining faith, but I don’t have a clue if it’s right. However when I look at images sent back from the Hubble telescope I rest comfortably in the understanding that it’s something impossible for me to know while I’m on the physical plane.

So please, spare us your proclamations of omniscience and enjoy the ride, because we think you’re just as full of shit as the rest of us.

From Filipino Congressman Mong Palatino…

“Immoral” rock concerts were banned in Malaysia. An “immoral” gay group was disqualified from participating in the Philippine elections. Immorality was blamed for the natural disasters that hit Indonesia this year. It seems public authorities are playing the morality card to uphold the dominant social order in many Southeast Asian countries.

To protect the morals of society, the youth arm of Pan Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS Youth) proposed the banning of the Michael Learns Rock reunion concert in Malaysia last August. This is the same political party which banned the concerts of “indecent” music stars like Beyonce, Avril Lavigne and Gwen Stefani in Malaysia.

Malaysian Muslims also weren’t allowed to watch the Black Eyed Peas concert because the show was sponsored by an alcohol company.

PAS Youth accused the foreign artists of corrupting the minds of the public. The group claimed that these types of concerts “will not help motivate the people to become good citizens, but instead will weaken their morals and mental strength, and at the same time will drag them down to drown in the turbulence of lust.”

For promoting same-sex relationships, which are contrary to religious beliefs, the Philippine Commission on Elections has rejected the petition of gay group Ang Ladlad to be recognized as a party that can run in the 2010 elections. The poll body used religious texts like the Bible and Koran, instead of legal documents, to justify its ruling.

The Ang Ladlad group was described by the government election body as an immoral party because it espouses same-sex marriage and other equality demands of the Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender or LGBT sector.

Indonesia’s Communication and Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring surprised many when he asserted during a prayer meeting that the powerful quake that rocked Indonesia this year was due to declining public morals.

During an interview he said, “Television broadcasts that destroy morals are plentiful in this country and therefore disasters will continue to occur.” He cited the Indonesia-made porn DVDs which are available in street markets as proof of public decadence. His statement about the immorality-disaster link was supported by the influential Indonesian Ullema Council.

The concert ban in Malaysia, the anti-LGBT ruling in the Philippines, and the immorality equals earthquake thesis in Indonesia confirm the dominance of traditional and conservative values in modern Southeast Asian societies. Despite the economic and technological advances in the region, medieval thinking still reigns in many countries. Government bodies are still ruled by old bureaucrats who cling to feudal values and beliefs. Tech-savvy leaders like Tifatul Sembiring still espouse anti-scientific views.

Church leaders are expected to remind the faithful about the need to follow the teachings of their religion. On the other hand, public officials are not required to subscribe to a particular religious doctrine in fulfilling their constitutional duties. In fact, they are disallowed from using their power and position to advance and impose their religious beliefs on the public.

Secular institutions and public officials usurp the role of the church when they act as guardians of public morals. Their mandate is not to serve as spokespersons and proxies of church leaders. They should not behave like morality cops who dictate what is right and wrong for everybody. Asian countries may have won their political independence decades ago but many are still not free from the clutch of religious bigotry.

To maintain peace and order, governments always devise procedures to control the activities of their citizens. The morality card is being played to produce desirable attitudes, sentiments and behavior among the population.

Perhaps the morality issue is used today in response to the worsening global economic crisis. Governments are afraid that the jobless and hungry segments of the population will express their frustration through radical actions. By invoking morality, governments aim to discourage dissidence.

By banning concerts, denying equal rights and blaming immoral behavior for the occurrence of natural disasters, repressive governments with democratic trappings are hinting that they are ready to displease a certain segment of the population if it will serve their political interests.

Today, immorality is equated with rock stars, same-sex relationships and pornography. Soon the sin of immorality might be extended to all those who dare oppose the policies of the government. Moralist politicians want to normalize the practice of naming things they dislike as immoral. It is important to prevent the morality cops from monopolizing the debate on what constitutes moral and immoral behavior.

When hypocrites accuse our favorite rock stars of being immoral, we should advise them that they can choose not to listen to these immoral entertainers. When gay groups are disqualified from running for public office, we should appeal that all corrupt politicians should be prevented too from holding a public position.

Asserting equality demands is a moral right. Rejecting bigotry is a moral stand. Defying unjust policies is a moral act. If we are labeled as immoral because we refuse to surrender our principles, then by all means, let’s prove that sometimes promoting immorality can be the most subversive act we can achieve in our lifetime.