How About Some Separation Of Church And American Idol

I've admitted here before that I am an American Idol fan. But this year for some reason I'm noticing way too many Jesus songs.

There are two possibilities here. One, the Christian Right has something major to do with the advertising that goes on with the show, or American Idol has a very large Christian Right audience. I'm not sure which is true. But I do know one thing, this Jesus crap is getting annoying. And yes, I know I can always change the channel. I did that on Wednesday night for the Idol Gives Back show. No matter how great a cause is, my brain just melts down when I see multi-multi-multi millionaires asking me to donate. This makes it very hard for me to enjoy the entertainment that goes with it.

I noticed a rash of Jesus songs during the ridiculous Dolly Parton week. To get the contestants to do Dolly Parton songs was sadistic at best. Many of her songs contains praises for that guy who probably never existed (Jesus Christ). We got a good dose of Jesus that week, capped off by Dolly's new single: JESUS and GRAVITY. I actually laughed at that song. I was thinking of the article from the Onion: Intelligent Falling: Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity.

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University...

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

The past week, the theme was Inspirational Songs, and of course this led to more Jesus or Lordy type songs. They probably wanted to appeal to the Jesus freaks to open up their wallets and give. I get it, but what I don't get is forcing the group of singers to sing a Jesus song. Actually a controversy arose. In the telethon show at the end, the contestants all sang an evangelical Christian song called "Shout The Lord." The first line of the song is "My Jesus, my Savior." This line was replaced with "My Shepherd, my Savior." Thanks to complaints by the Christian Right, the song became the opener on the elimination show on Thursday, and they changed the lyrics back to the original.

Michael Giltz sums it up way better than I can:

1. It's unfair to the performers who want to win -- Pressuring them to sing an evangelical number is wrong. Who wants to be revealed as the Idol who refused to sing a song about Jesus? Think that might hurt their chances with Middle America? They should never have been put in that position.

2. It's unfair to the performers of conscience -- I'm a Catholic and that's a tune we would never sing in Church, though none of its lyrics are of the sort that conflict with my faith. (Though many evangelical tunes, in fact, do and entire trends in Christian music are embraced by liberal evangelicals, rejected by conservative evangelicals and vice versa.) But what about the Idols who aren't Christian? Maybe some of them are Buddhist or agnostic or Jewish or Muslim or god forbid, atheist.

3. It's offensive to the viewers -- I'm a Catholic and I was offended. I don't turn on Idol to be converted or evangelized to by the show -- and that's exactly what a group sing-along is. It's a statement by the show, not individual kids. America is the most religiously diverse country in the world (and I live in Queens, New York -- the most religiously and ethnically diverse corner of the world). That's something to celebrate and it also means respecting other faiths and people of no faith. You don't do that by hijacking Idol to make all the kids sing about Jesus. Even if each and every one of them is born again and dying to sing the praises of the Lord, you don't alienate the viewers like me -- and most Americans are not evangelicals -- who don't identity with that particular strand of Christianity.

Dropping the "Jesus" from "Shout to the Lord" was a big mistake. Making all the Idol contestants sing it together in the first place was an even bigger one. If any individual Idol wanted to sing it, fine. But a group sing-along? Wrong.

Aside from all that, I couldn't believe the very talented Michael Johns was eliminated. I know that his choice of inspirational songs, Dream On, was not what the producers were looking for, and this probably led to him not getting a reprise like what happened during Idol Gives Back Week last year when they didn't dismiss anyone. I still don't know why Ryan Seacrest actually teased him by stating it as if they were going to let him stay on and then abruptly told him "this year, you will be leaving," or something like that. Maybe he was rubbing it in his face for his choice of song that could have been written about drugs (some say it was a song about cocaine), and at the very least has agnostic overtones. The song is about living for today because you might die tomorrow, and death MAY not be all the great, or why care if you die tomorrow? At least we know we can sing today. Anyway, if the Christian Right had a huge influence on the voting and voted those who sang more Lordy Lordy Christian type songs the past week, "The good Lord" really did take him away...at least from the show.

A few other things, since this is probably going to be my only Idol post this year. First, I still laugh to myself when I think of the line that Kristy Lee Cook said to Simon Cowell weeks ago, after Simon said some bad things about her singing. Kristy said "I'm going to BLOW YOU out of your socks." Everyone on Idol was uncomfortably grinning after that one.
Jordin Sparks (last years Idol) new single was the worst song I think I've heard in years (was it really a song?). I would have rather heard nails screeching on a chalkboard.
I think Simon Cowell has to be atheist or agnostic. He is just too clever to be a theist.
Paula and Randy though, they are believers. Nothing is holding them back.
David Archuleta is going to win this year. He has a great voice, and being so young, he has a great future.

Michael Johns "Dream On":

King Heathen's Transitions Video: Creationists Should Give It A View

Here is a simple and logical way for just about anyone to understand evolution. A bit of a warning. If you are a creationist and you view this video, you may have problems refuting evolution from here on in:



I've seen one video response to King Heathen's video by one who considers himself to be a Fundamentalist. King Theist23 is probably the most rational Fundamentalist you will find though. His response is for his Fundamentalist brothers and sisters:


He makes excellent points. However, I have to take exception to his line "I don't know, I wasn't there." This is a complete 180 from his stating "I love science."
Also, saying "it doesn't matter if evolution is true or if the world is ancient" is also an ignorant statement. It completely matters if you are in the field of science. It also matters in many cases in how one views things like homosexuality, for example.

Interestingly, he concedes that it is a possibility that God put all the evidence for evolution on this planet, as well as the evidence for the deception that the earth and universe is 4.5 billion and 13.5 billion years old, when he possibly created everything 6,000 years ago. Mind blowing how far people will go, even rational ones.

Tagged: The Six Word Short Story

Lex from Gripes of Wrath has tagged me.

The Six-Words Meme was originally started by Smith Magazine. The history is thus:

Legend has it that Hemingway was once challenged to write a story in only six words. His response? “For sale: baby shoes, never worn.” Last year, SMITH Magazine re-ignited the recountre by asking our readers for their own six-word memoirs. They sent in short life stories in droves, from the bittersweet (“Cursed with cancer, blessed with friends”) and poignant (“I still make coffee for two”) to the inspirational (“Business school? Bah! Pop music? Hurrah”) and hilarious (“I like big butts, can’t lie”).

I'll give this one a try.

"She lied, I was the best."

I tag no one. No pressure.

There! Two stories for the price of one.

Another Question For Fundies: Where Does My Morality Come From

I'd like to hear from Fundies. Now I realize that I haven't attracted too many Fundies to comment on my blog recently, but I'm asking for feedback here.
A couple of days ago, I saw a stray dog roaming from backyard to backyard on the street of my backyard neighbours. One neighbour, a Christian told the dog to get out of his backyard, not in an evil way, but just the same, he just turned the other cheek at the plight of this lost doggy.
I was thinking of going around to the other street with a leash, but before I could even get my coat on, Daisy, my border collie, started barking as if the mailman was at my front door. It was the stray dog.
I checked to see if there was any ID on his collar. Nope.
I opened the gate to let the dog into my confined large backyard.
I got him some water, and a couple of dog treat bones.
Daisy was curious, so I hesitantly let Daisy out back with him. They were fine together.
But then my wife got too comfortable with the dog and let him into the house. I said three words to her: "are you crazy." And just as I finished saying those words, the dog had spotted Otto, my "temporary" cat. He wound up viciously chasing Otto around the living room, causing Otto tremendous trauma, but luckily no physical damage. I think it is the first time that Otto found out a valuable lesson: that he is part of the food chain.
We quickly got the dog out of the house, and knew right there that adopting the poor old guy was out of the question.
I phoned the local SPCA to see if an older black lab male had been reported lost. No luck. I told them I would walk the dog for a bit to see if anyone recognizes him.

I started walking the dog saying "go home" and letting him lead. The few people I asked about recognition came up empty for me.

I had noticed I walked about 25 minutes when it dawned on me. Why am I doing this? I'm supposed to be a heartless atheist void of morals. What was driving me to walk this mutt? I'm not out to impress my God, because God is non existent to me. Was I out to impress my wife? I don't think so. I'm way beyond that these days.

Even after this realization, I continued walking with the dog for another 25 minutes.
No luck still.

But my question remains Fundies, why did I do this? And don't give me the "it doesn't matter because dogs don't go to heaven so they don't count as morality stuff."

I finally phoned the SPCA and they sent someone to pick him up (I was pretty sure that they don't put stray dogs down in my area). The SPCA dude was a flaming gay. I felt like saying, "if you want to get married to another guy, it is OK with me," but I held back. But man was he gay. He referred to the dog as "honey." And yes, he knew the dog was male. While putting him into the truck he said, "looks like you are neutered, honey."

Anyway, I asked if there was a chance he would be put down, and I was relieved to hear that they don't put stray dogs down in my area.

THE NEW 16 COMMANDMENTS: HOW TO DEAL WITH ISLAM IN THE WEST

Lex over at Gripes of Wrath has found a very good article entitled What Is To Be Done, by Hugh Fitzgerald. I'm going to just copy the summary for my blog readers, some of whom will be upset over this piece:

1. Education of Infidels, so that they are well aware of the contents of the texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira.

2. Education of Infidels, so that they understand how, over 1350 years, those texts have been received, and acted upon, by Believers.

3. Education of Infidels, so that they know a good deal about the history of Islamic conquest, and subsequent subjugation of non-Muslim peoples in the lands conquered -- a subjugation that, no matter what the land, or the kind of non-Muslims conquered, the result was always the same.

4. Education of Muslims within Infidel countries, so that they will understand that the failures of Muslim societies -- political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral -- are the direct result of Islam itself.

5. An end to all Muslim immigration to Infidel lands.

6. Imposition of tests for naturalization that require a detailed knowledge of the history and cultural achievements of the Western country in question -- see "Going Dutch" for one, admittedly exaggerated-for-effect example.

7. Inclusion, in the test for naturalization, of a loyalty oath, swearing sole allegiance to the political and legal institutions of the particular Infidel nation-state. In the case of the United States, allegiance to the Constitution would be considered adequate. Subsequent proof of perjury would, in the law, be considered valid grounds for stripping a naturalized citizen of that citizenship.

8. Making any support, direct or indirect, for Jihad -- defined as the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, including but not limited to the political and legal institutions of the host country – illegal.

9. Preventing any foreign funds from entering the country to be spent for the building or upkeep of mosques or other institutions connected to Islam, or for campaigns of Da'wa.

10. Curtailing in the prisons campaigns of Da'wa, on the grounds that the evidence shows that those who convert contain a high proportion of people who subsequently present a threat to society.

11. Refusing to bow to any Muslim demands for changes either in schools or in workplaces to accommodate Muslim rituals or Muslim ideas of what is fitting, from the hijab (where banned, as in France) or for extra time off for prayers in the middle of the work-day. This is not the sort of accommodation that Infidels, in Infidel lands, should be expected to make. In other words, the policy should be No Changes For Islam.

12. Reciprocity in the current number of mosques. Taking into account the absence, for tens of millions of non-Muslims in Muslim-ruled lands, of churches, Hindu temples, and other houses of worship, the policy should be to reduce the number of mosques in Western lands until there is a change in the Muslim lands. Reciprocity is a concept most people can understand and justify.

13. Reducing benefits so that large families (likely to be Muslim) cannot continue to be formed by those who assume they will be supported by the state. Muslim women will be expected to work in the same numbers as non-Muslim women, and will no longer be supported by the Infidel state (that is, Infidel taxpayers) to be breeding machines.

14. Enforcement of the laws against polygamy will be increased. Those practicing polygamy will be subject to being stripped of citizenship and returned to that Muslim state from which they, or their closest relatives, came. Since so many Muslims in Western Europe continue to observe, in Muslim enclaves, the mores of the countries that they, or their parents, or their grandparents, came from, the argument that they cannot "go back" can be dealt with. There is no obligation for the countries of Western Europe to live with the colossal error of their immigration policy.

15. There will be not the slightest concession made to Muslim sensibilities on the subject of aspects of Islam, including Muhammad. Those who wish to live in an environment where Islam is to be free of criticism are free to move to Muslim countries. There are many dozens of them. They control vast land areas, and vast natural resources. This is not a case of a tiny people having no place to go.

16. Efforts should be made to publicize the most celebrated defectors from Islam, to publish and distribute their books, to make much of them. This should be done both for the education of Infidels, and for the conceivable education of those who, born into Islam, may be persuaded to leave it.

The countries of North America and Western European countries can do much to make the practice of Islam, and campaigns of Da'wa, harder to support, and to make those Muslims who are intent on adhering to this ideology so dangerous to non-Muslims think again about remaining in the Western world. Benefits can be limited. Foreign sources of aid can be cut. The general atmosphere of continuing refusal to yield, and of ever-increasing Infidel awareness of the texts of Islam and the history of Muslim conquest, will naturally create conditions of suspicion and hostility that are not, to the well-informed, either wicked, or baseless but, alas, entirely reasonable.

The above makes sense to me. Unfortunately, realistically only some of these issues will ever be marginally touched on, until perhaps it is too late.

With that said, I don't see much difference in Muslim demands when pitted against fundamental Christian demands when it comes to gay marriage and choice and God in school. The only difference is the reaction of what happens when their mythological world views are shut down. Muslims are dangerous. Christians are collectively becoming more enlightened, even the most Fundamental of them, and though they are whining and bitching over the unChristianization of the West, they are impotent as reality has taken over. When it is said and done, most of them can't possibly believe with 100% conviction in their fantasy stories.

God Is For Suckers has a great comedy clip up by Bill Maher on religion (language warning):


I'm not worried about the Christian Right anymore. The internet is destroying the YEC movement very quickly. And the Fundy Jews are not a bother either, except they might give me a dirty look while shaking a finger at me.

Back to the Muslims. Read Lex's article about Critical Mass when it comes to Muslim immigration as well.

It really gets me that Muslims collectively are against Israel's right to exist, and like to pretend that it is prior to 1948 when dealing with what the solution for the region is. By 1948, there was something like 600,000 Jews in the region. Many of whom migrated there from Europe, but so what? It is OK for millions of Muslims to migrate to the West but not OK for 300,000 Jews to migrate to a tiny region in the middle east that was non sovereign land? Talk about hypocrisy.