My new post, Islamophobia and an American Heathen, is up at Pagan + Politics. You can also find a recent post on this subject by me at PoliticusUSA, here

Since Akhenaten’s failed experiment with monotheism in the fourteenth century B.C.E. monotheism has waged war on mankind. It was not enough for Akhenaten to simply install a cult devoted to one god, or even as one god as the only god. He had to demolish the other gods and their worship.

It was the same with Moses. “Thou shall have no other gods before me,” YHWH is to have said to Moses. At once an acknowledgment that other gods lived and an injunction against them, this rabid and unreasoning intolerance of alternatives to itself has been monotheism’s hallmark for close to thirty centuries.

That’s a long time to hate.

And it’s a lot of insecurity.

Polytheism never had a problem with other gods. Just plug another god into the pantheon or add a pantheon and worship one, two or ten. It made no difference to the worshiper and it made no difference to the gods. Jealousy is a thing felt only by a god who wants to be the only one.

Or, at least, by his followers. After all, as the emperor Julian said in the fourth century, it’s a libel upon god to accuse him of such shortcomings.

When Jesus came around the same problem cropped up. But now the focus was not on YHWH but on his son, and it was his turn to be the big cheese. Everything was about Jesus; it still is in Christian culture. YHWH belongs to the OLD Testament.

Mohammed offered the same stark distinction: there is no god but Allah.

None. Zip. Cancel Jesus’ claim and push him out the door. And all the other gods with him.

And on and on polytheism persisted, accepting every god that came along and rejecting none. The Romans thought people who believed in just one god were a little odd but there was no legislation against it, let alone a persecution that lasted centuries.

But monotheism has never been content to live and let live. Its entire history is one of holy wars, persecutions, book (and people) burnings, and inquisitions. Monotheism is by its very nature intolerant. It is part of the package.

And after all the long years we’re stuck with three of them, all hating each other and the rest of us, demanding that their own system of belief be privileged above all others and claiming unique access to the divine. Everyone belly-up, kneel, or bend over and praise god.

Millions have died over a question of divine jealousy and insecurity. It is rather difficult for a non-monotheist to imagine anybody wanting to honor a god who is capable of such childish motivations, but monotheists thrive on it.

Banished are the benign gods and welcomed is the angry sky god with his wrath and threats of eternal damnation. It’s difficult to find something monotheism doesn’t hate.

Choice, the first fruits of a liberal democracy, is a bogeyman. There is a reason that choice is equated with heresy, because choice negates orthodoxy. There is only one thing to believe and there is only one way to go about believing it. Any veering from the path leads to catastrophe.

A polytheist can only throw up his hands in wonder. Everybody knows, after all, that there are many truths and many paths, and that each culture has the religion that is right – and true – for it.

People have a right to believe anything they want, including nothing at all. As Thomas Jefferson said, “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

That is the assurance we have from the United States Constitution, ratified by every state in the Union.

And now under attack by conservative Christians who have decided that since the history of the United States is not to their liking that it should be re-written and our nation established retroactively as one made by and for Christians and Christians alone.

And only a specific type of Christian.

We’re even being told that Islam isn’t really a religion and therefore First Amendment protections do not apply to it. Who is making this ruling after the fact? A conservative Christian. And of course if the world’s second largest religion isn’t really a religion, you don’t have to work your brain very hard to figure out where everyone else stands.

It is to prevent such madness that the First Amendment exists. It is for that reason that conservative Christians are re-writing our nation’s history, and interpreting the First Amendment and the Wall of Separation out of existence.

As Sarah Palin says, the Ten Commandments trump the Constitution. Sharron Angle wants to legislate Old Testament law.

You don’t have to be a genius to see the outcome for those who, as George Carlin said, give the wrong answer to the god question.

To polytheists, atheists, secular humanists, liberals, progressives, and everyone else who might worship one god but not in the approved way, bend over and kiss your golden idol goodbye.

Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, who is currently (one might say justifiably) running third in the state’s Republican gubernatorial primary race, is apparently  not sure if the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of religion apply to Islam, which happens to be the world’s second-largest religion – right after Ramsey’s own religion.

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

This incident of gross stupidity and intolerance (it can only be both) took place at a recent event in Hamilton County, TN. Ramsey, responding to an audience question regarding the “threat that’s invading our country from the Muslims,” pretended support for the Constitution and the whole “Congress shall make no law” rigmarole when it comes to religion but voiced reservations about Islam’s status as a religion, claiming it’s more of a  “cult” than a religion.

“Now, you could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult whatever you want to call it,” Ramsey said. “Now certainly we do protect our religions, but at the same time this is something we are going to have to face.”

If you want to start pulling out your guides to what constitutes a cult, you will quickly see that Christianity qualifies in many ways as a cult. And this is to ignore the terrifying prospect of religion mixing with politics – which is the purpose of the Constitutional guarantees Ramsey pretends to support. Our Founding Fathers lived at a time in which governments supported state religion and of course deprived minority religious groups of their rights. I have in my family tree a French Huguenot, a protestant, who fled Catholic France for a chance of religious freedom in the New World. The Catholics then spoke of protestants in much the same way Christian conservatives in this country speak of Muslims, as non-people, a non-religion, an infestation to be stamped out.

Talk about a religious group controlling the US government to the extent that it decides which religions are religions and which are not is one that should not be taking place in this country. Christianity has made it quite clear that Christianity is the only true religion, that it is more equal than other religions, etc. This is fine. They have a right to feel that way. They do not have a right to impose it as public policy. That’s why we have the Constitutional guarantees Ramsey treats so carelessly.

I saw the following story on the Minnesota Independent this morning and being a Minnesota native myself, I felt moved to respond: White on same-sex marriage: Rosa Parks didn’t ‘move to the front of the bus to support sodomy’

“For the first time in Minnesota history, a legislative committee contemplated the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state on Monday.” About time, I’d say. And it’s a shame that Minnesota’s political landscape has been dirtied by the reprehensible beliefs of a small group of narrow-minded Christian bigots.

It wasn’t that way when I left – good Scandinavian pragmatism still had some meaning then – but now the ideologues are out in full force, spewing bile and hate everywhere they go. Case in point: In response to  “moving testimony” by LGBT families about “the hardships their families face because they cannot marry,” a pair of these bigots – congressional candidates both, I’m saddened to admit, had this to say:

Barb Davis White, a Tea Party activist and Republican candidate for Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, prompted shocked gasps from the packed hearing room when she said, “Rosa Parks did not move to the front of the bus to support sodomy.” Her testimony involved accusations that the movement for marriage equality is hijacking the civil rights movement.

“There is no difference between a black person and a white person other than their skin color when there’s a tremendous difference between a man and a woman,” said White, who was the GOP’s endorsed candidate against Rep. Keith Ellison in 2008.

I’m impressed that she noticed, given the well known fear extremist Christians have of sexuality and the human body. But really, that there is a significant difference between men and women has no meaning beyond that which she gives it by way of her myopic and close-minded view of gender and gender roles.

She stated that “Allowing a black woman and a white man to marry does not change the definition of marriage. However, allowing two men or two women to marry would fundamentally change that definition.”

No, in point of fact, it would not. Marriage is between two people who love each other and wish to formalize their union. It makes no difference what the genders of the couple are. Love, I submit, is love. And rights, Ms. White, are rights. And the Constitution does not have any exclusionary clauses with regard to rights.

“White also garnered some laughs from the audience when she said, “Studies also show that the average homosexual has hundreds of sexual partners in his lifetime… and I repeat hundreds.””

Let’s be perfectly honest and direct here: this is something extremist Christians like to say. Like children who think they’re on to something clever, they will repeat it at every opportunity.

But here is the important point: It has no basis in fact. She has no studies to prove that gays and lesbians are more promiscuous than any pastor’s daughter.

And here is where Barb White stands up and testifies to all, “I am a narrow-minded and intolerant bigot”: “I’m here today to tell you that homosexuality and lesbian behavior is unhealthy,” claiming that gays and lesbians have higher rates of STDs than anyone else in the world, including, she asserts, “gay bowel disease,” an ailment the author of the article correctly points out that does not exist but which “is often used by religious right figures to paint gay men as diseased.”

I would like to submit this thought to Ms. White (since you seem to have few of your own): it is irrelevant how promiscuous a person is – it’s none of your damned business. It has nothing to do with their right to get married, or do you intend to impose a “promiscuity test” for marriage candidates – across the board, straight and LGBT? If you sleep around you lose your marriage rights? After all, if promiscuity is the issue, you have to apply the standard equally.

But as I said above, there were two congressional candidates exposing their bigotry at this gathering. The other nitwit adding her voice to the hatefest was St. Thomas University law professor Teresa Stanton Collett, “who is running as a Republican for the 4th Congressional District, warned that Minnesota’s Christians are under attack.” Teresa Collett is proof positive that you can get a college degree and still be as dumb as a box of hammers.

Christians under attack? It is difficult to see how this can be so, since Christianity doesn’t enter into the equation. The only people being attacked are those who are different from Ms. Collett: in other words, the LGBT community. I don’t know of any LGBT couple saying she should lose her rights because she is a Christian, or that Christianity should be outlawed.I don’t know of any bans being imposed (or even suggested) against Christianity or Christian belief. Ms. Collett’s beliefs are not being imposed on in any way. If you believe it’s wrong, don’t do it. It’s really as easy as that.

But let’s give this hate monger an opportunity to display her low thinking:

“Make no mistake: Marriage, as a civil institution, as a legal institution, is grounded not merely in religion but also in the biological reality that sex makes children and children need a mom and a dad,” she said. “And should we choose to redefine that legally we will put the religious and moral beliefs of all Minnesotans at issue.”

This is not much of an argument. All Minnesotans? She’s wrong about that. Not every Minnesotan is a narrow-minded bigot like her. But she is right that marriage is a civil, not a religious, institution, but she is also wrong because it is not historically grounded in religion. Her god did not invent the institution of marriage and has no exclusive rights to it.

Further, I would like to point out to Ms. Collett that the Bible presents all sorts of marriage scenarios, none of them including one man and on woman. Even in Jesus’ day polygyny (one man, multiple wives) was common. It is significant that Jesus did not take the time to denounce it.

But let the hate flow: “Churches and religiously affiliated institutions will lose their tax-exempt status,” she said.

I don’t see how this is a logical outcome of granting people their Constitutional rights, but they should lose it anyway, I say, as they blatantly and illegally engage in politicking.

The article goes on to inform us that “She claimed that Christian colleges would be forced to house same-sex couples in dorms, social work students would be kicked out of school if they refused to counsel gays and lesbians, politicians would revoke funds from religious organizations, and parents would be arrested for speaking out against homosexuality.”

Wow, those poor Christians. As opposed to say LGBT couples having no rights at all, at present, to get married, and who lack many other rights held by heterosexuals, who are banned from joining certain organizations (even if those organizations are publicly funded).

What Teresa Collett really wants is a right to violate the constitutional rights of individuals based on who hey fall in love with, all the while pretending to be concerned about rights. In truth, the only right she is concerned about is her right to deprive other people of theirs.

In the end, we are told, “The hourlong testimony from both sides contemplated three bills: one to create civil unions, one to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and one to allow full legal marriage for same-sex couples. The hearing was for informational purposes only, and no vote was taken.”

You can find my interview with Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation at Pagan + Politics, the blog of the Pagan Newswire Collective: http://politics.pagannewswirecollective.com/2010/02/26/an-interview-with-mikey-weinstein-of-military-religious-freedom-foundation/

I hope you will take the time to give it a read. Mr. Weinstein has a very important message to get across about a threat to our freedoms that is very real and very frightening. It is one we should all take seriously.