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 a bumper sticker the other day that made me laugh. It said, in bright readable letters: “God is Pro-Life.”

Really? I thought.

What are we supposed to go by? This assertion, so often made by the would-be moral police on the Religious Right? Or the assertions supposedly made by God himself and his followers and preserved in the pages of the Bible?

The Bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God after all, and there is some pretty anti-life stuff in there. As religioustolerance.org summarizes, “These include religiously-motivated genocide, stoning non-virgin brides to death, burning some hookers alive, treating women as property, etc.”

I mean, nasty stuff. Not pro-life at all. Since we can’t ask God and the prophet business has dried up over the past few thousand years, let’s do the next best thing and flip through the Bible.

Things don’t begin well for the pro-life argument. Ezekiel 34:31 states:

“And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your God, saith the Lord GOD.”

Yes, only Jews are human to YHWH. The Nations (Gentiles) – in a word, everyone else – are beasts. You remember what Jesus said about them, don’t you? Swine and dogs.

Now of course, the situation is complicated by the fact of three competing monotheisms, all claiming to be descended from Abraham.  Everyone knows the Jewish “Chosen People” spiel but there seems to be a lot of that going around.

Muslims point to Genesis 15:18 as proof that they got the prized covenant from Abraham via Abraham’s firstborn child Ishmael, son of Abraham and his second wife, Hagar. The Jewish claim rests on the assertion that God passed the covenant on to Isaac (Genesis 17:19-21), the son Abraham and main wife, Sarah. And of course, Christians believe it passed on to them via Jesus.

Which would be fine, but apparently this covenant is exclusive property. They can’t all have it.

And they hate each other for it. We’re used now to Christian attacks on Mohammed but in the Talmud, both Jesus and Mohammed are “dead dogs.” America’s Talibangelicals seem to hate Islam with the same fervor they once reserved for Judaism.

The result is the followers of the “god of love” have as much hate as the god they worship. If we judge the tree by its fruit, it’s clear that the god of love is no such thing. It is also clear that his stance is anything but pro-life.

Let’s climb up and look at the tree some more.

We don’t have to look far:

Exodus (22:20): “Whoever sacrifices to any god, save to the LORD only, shall be utterly destroyed.”

Ouch. Yeah, not so much pro-life.

And it’s not like Jesus steered away from this platform. Yes, old YHWH said you should hate your enemies (after all, he did) and Jesus said to love them, but for both the end-time scenario was the same.

Everyone else has gotta go. Off the planet.

It’s no wonder Christian conservatives feel comfortable saying the US is by and for Christians. That’s actually a step down from their God’s platform. Maybe we should be grateful they’re being so moderate.

It is really difficult to find this god who is pro-life in the pages of the Bible. It’s filled with atrocity after atrocity and many of them at God’s own command. It’s no wonder it has sometimes been called one long hate speech.

Look at Numbers 31:17, concerning the Midianites:

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

The god of human sexual trafficking.

Exodus 22:18: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”

This is not very pro-life. It obviously means everyone who doesn’t follow YHWH needs to be killed.

Deuteronomy 32:9-43 is white hot in its opposition to non-believers, as is Deuteronomy 13:6-10:

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods…you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.’

Is this pro-life?:

“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. they must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads” (Leviticus 20:13).

And then there is always the pesky issue of human sacrifice. Can a pro-life god demand babies be sacrificed to him?

Exodus 22.29 literally, YHWH demanded human sacrifice as well: that of the first-born son:

Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

Ezekiel (20.26) certainly takes God’s command literally:

“I let them become defiled through their gifts – the sacrifice of every firstborn – that I might fill them with horrors so they would know that I am the LORD.”

The ever-reviled Baal and Moloch have nothing on this guy.

Of course, some apologists claim that this was not literally sacrifice but only consecration. Problems arise, however, when we see for example how in 2 Kings 21.6 King Manasseh “sacrificed his own son to the fire.”

And Levicitus (27.28-29) makes clear this is sacrifice, not consecration:

But nothing that a man owns and devotes to the LORD – whether man or animal or family land – may be sold or redeemed; everything so devoted is most holy to the LORD. No person devoted to destruction may be ransomed; he must be put to death.

Then there is story of Jephthah, one of the Judges of Israel who lived in the time before the first king, who in fulfillment of a vow sacrificed his own daughter to God (Judges 11:29-39).

Did Jesus really change anything? No, not really.

(Luke 19:27):

“But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me.”

Luke 14:26:

If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

The Bible has been used to support and justify all kinds of hate and intolerance and violence. Yes, the Bible gets misused and abused and misquoted and taken out of context but the ideas of hate are there; they are not invented. The hate is there and those who follow the Bible get as riled up by God’s speeches as people once did by Hitler’s.

But making statements like the one found on that bumper sticker is not based on any biblical evidence that I can find.  Saying it doesn’t make it so, however convenient the wish might be for the so-called pro-life movement (otherwise known as the anti-mother movement) and taking it upon oneself to speak for “God” seems a risky undertaking.

The arguments used to advance this pro-life point of view are weak and general: Nehemiah 9:6 that God gives life to everything; Job 12:10 that God’s hand is in the life of every creature; Deuteronomy 30:19-20 where God tells the Jews to choose life over death. The argument that because God creates life he is pro-life is a weak one. He obviously also created death and later, we are to believe, sent his own son to be killed. And while Deuteronomy is used to promote the pro-life cause, as we have seen above just a couple passages later God is expounding a very pro-death point of view (Deuteronomy 32:9-43). The most mis-used passage relates to a very special person, and not to all people. That is Jeremiah 1:4-5: The word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” A very special case, said nowhere to apply to humankind generally. In fact, it is a unique statement in the Bible.

You want abortion examples from the Bible? Hosea 9:11-16; Hosea 13:16; Numbers 5:11-21; Numbers 31:17; 2 Kings 15:16. You want the murder of infants? 1 Samuel 15:3; Psalms 135:8, 136:10; Psalms 137:9.

It would be more accurate for the bumper sticker to read: “God is anti-life” because if there is one thing God seems to love in the Old Testament, it’s murdering babies, inside and outside the womb.

My new article on Pagan+Politics, inspired by the American Family Association’s demand to stone a killer whale and SeaWorld Orlando’s curator, deals with the issue of projecting ancient law codes into the present. You can find it here.