"Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists." Daisy Khan

Below is an extended excerpt from an NPR story by Margot Adler dated July 15th:

The plan for Cordoba House — which those who oppose it call a mosque, and those who support it call a cultural center with a place for prayer — has been the dream of Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf and his wife Daisy Khan. Khan describes it somewhat like the Jewish Community Center uptown, with facilities for athletics, arts, performances, lectures series, forums and weddings, as well as a prayer space.

Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf considers himself an orthodox Muslim, but he is also a Sufi, a contemplative and mystical path in Islam. The offices of the Imam and his wife are in a building used by many faiths that is part of Riverside Church in upper Manhattan, a liberal bastion of interfaith work. When you listen to Khan speak, she sounds very much in that tradition.

"Our religion has been hijacked by the extremists," she says. "This center will create this kind of counter momentum which will amplify the voices of the moderate Muslims. If we have to defeat the extremists, Muslims have to be leading that effort."

Here is a link to the complete transcript of the story.

Many of the right-wing opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque have been quoting this particular story, especially the Daisy Khan sound-bite about "hijacking". I think it's important for people to know that the actual source of the "hijacking" quote is a story by everyone's favorite Überliberal Unitarian Universalist Pagan journalist.

My question for Daisy Khan (and her fan Margot Adler) is: If Islam has been "hijacked", how are we to distinguish between (1) the hijackers, (2) those who have been hijacked, and (3) the un-hijacked "moderate Muslims" who are supposedly "leading the effort" to "defeat the extremists."

Now, to all those moderate Muslims out there who are leading the effort to defeat the extremists: I salute you.

But forgive me if I ask: Where are you? Who are you? What are these "efforts" you are engaged in, and how is that going? Also, I would like to know: when did Daisy Khan join your ranks?

Daisy Khan and her husband, Faisal Abdul Rauf, and the other movers and shakers of the Cordoba Initiative apparently want us to take their word for it that they are the good guys. They refuse to openly discuss their relationships with other groups or their (apparently very considerable) sources of funding. And why do they only speak of "extremists" in the abstract? Why not tell us who the extremists are, and what, specifically, the moderates are doing to "defeat" them?

An interesting, and illuminating, side-issue is the way Adler asserts that "those who oppose" the mosque call it a mosque, while "those who support it" call it a "cultural center." This just so happens to be a lie.

Everyone called the mosque a mosque until quite recently. And it has taken a while for everyone to get the memo to stop calling the mosque a mosque. For example, Michael Bloomberg has stated "I happen to think this [Ground Zero] is a very appropriate place for somebody who wants to build a mosque." He said that on July 16, the day after Adler's NPR report.

And four days after Adler's report a piece by Harris Zafar, a Senior Writer for the Muslim Writers Guild of America, appeared at the Huffington Post under the title: "Ground Zero Mosque: A Muslims' Perspective", in which Zafar writes, "Organizers of the Muslim mosque near Ground Zero are pushing the project forward despite a growing number of vocal opponents wishing to halt this project in its tracks."

And just yesterday, on August 4, none other than Al freaking Jazeera gleefully reported on the Landmarks Preservation Commission vote under the headline:

'Ground Zero' mosque approved

Apparently the folks at Al Jazeera know exactly what an "Islamic cultural center" is: it's a mosque. Obviously.

On the one hand it is a small thing, perhaps. But on the other hand it is quite revealing how Adler and others are obsessing over the word "mosque" -- turning it into some kind of shibboleth of decency. Anyone who dares to call the mosque what it is must be automatically categorized as a hate-monger, while anyone who wishes to avoid the charge of racism must fall in line and stupidly pretend that the mosque will just be a place for people to play ping-pong and take cooking classes.

"I am definitely a practicing Hindu."

Why am I always the last to find out about these things? Anyway, I really love this picture of Swami Dharam Dev with Julia Roberts. That is all.

A Plague On Both Their Houses: Notes Toward a Renewal of Liberal Anticlericalism

Introduction

Liberal apologists for Islam now routinely insist that all criticism of the Religion of Peace comes only from bigoted right-wing Christian fundamentalists. At the same time, bigoted right-wing Christian fundamentalists, on cue, give voice to their crude, religiously inspired condemnations of Islam (condemnations which have changed little, if at all, over the centuries) in the same breath as their psychotic rantings against the evils of universal health care, their claims that Barack Obama is a crypto-socialist manchurian-muslim foreign-born wannabe tyrant, and their straight-faced announcements of the time and place of the next "Open Carry Family Picnic & Tea Party" (which all at least have the virtue of originality, after a fashion).

So the question arises: is it possible to oppose the spread of Islam without making common cause with the Sarah Palins, Glenn Becks, and Newt Gingriches of the world? Fortunately, the answer is a resounding yes. And one does not have to look very far to see how it can be done.

For centuries, anticlericalism has played an important role in the political and cultural life of the West. In fact, anticlericalism has helped to define and shape our very concept of Western modernity. Among the more famous anticlericalists have been James Madison, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Simon Bolivar, Jose Marti, Voltaire, Edward Gibbon, Adam Smith, David Hume, Emma Goldmann . . . .

Although sometimes mistakenly thought of in an overly narrow sense as simply anti-Catholicism (or "anti-Papism"), anticlericalism is broadly opposed to the accumulation of power and influence by religious organizations and movements. Anticlericalism also seeks to minimize the extent to which religion intrudes into public life generally.

Thomas Jefferson's anticlericalism, for example, certainly was not limited to opposition to Catholicism. In fact, he was more concerned with seeing to it that Protestant Churches did not become "established" than he was with the more remote threat posed by the Vatican. Jefferson waged a years long struggle in the Virginia legislature to pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (scroll down for an excerpt and a link), and during this time he was opposed by Anglicans and Congregationalists who wished to commit the Commonwealth of Virginia to officially supporting and subsidizing their (and possibly other) Churches.

James Madison was one of those who joined Jefferson in support of religious freedom and against the "establishment" of any Church or Churches in America. On the other hand, Patrick Henry was among those who supported a counterproposal titled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion." In the course of the debate (which lasted from 1777 to 1786) Madison wrote: "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" [from Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785]

While Madison was willing to state that as far as "the institution of Civil Society" is concerned, "Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance," Thomas Paine, however, went much further than such diplomatic neutrality, and in his rightfully celebrated magnum opus, The Age of Reason, he issued a blanket condemnation of what he referred to as "this thing called Christianity."

Modern, Western anticlericalism must be judged as having been quite successful -- so far. Decisively curtailing the social and intellectual influence and political power of Christianity has been crucial to the development of equality, freedom and democracy in the West over the last several centuries. But this success is still only partial, and Christianity (whether Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) remains a decidedly reactionary force when it comes to such issues as women's rights, gay rights, sexual freedom, sexual education, artistic expression, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion. And we cannot afford to forget that not so long ago, Christianity stood squarely on the side of out-and-out theocratic monarchism against all the basic freedoms and rights we now so cavalierly take for granted.

In the past, Western anticlericalism has been directed exclusively at Christianity, due to the centuries of Christian theocracy that had resulted in a virtual spiritual monopoly among Europeans. But times have changed, and a new theocratic spectre is haunting the West in the form of Islam. It is time for a new, revitalized anticlericalism: an anticlericalism that yields none of the ground already won from Christianity, while at the same time unapologetically opposing the spread of Islam because it poses a clear and present danger to human equality, human rights, and individual liberty.

1. The Problem, Briefly Stated

Question: How much power and influence for Islam is too much?

Answer: By the time you find out, it is already too late.

When Taslima Nasreen dared to write about the violent, and often deadly, persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh, she was forced to flee her native land and to seek refuge in India. But Taslima eventually discovered that even in India, a country that is only 13% Muslim, she was not safe. And so she fled to the United States.

When Ayaan Hirsi Ali was forced into an arranged marriage by her Somalian Muslim parents, she fled to the Netherlands where she found refuge and started a new life, even becoming a member of the Dutch Parliament. But Ayaan eventually discovered that even in the Netherlands, a country that is only 5% Muslim, she was not safe. And so she fled to the United States.

Anyone who studies Islam seriously -- its teachings, its history, and its contemporary implementations throughout the world today -- must conclude that Islam is an intrinsically totalitarian and expansionistic ideology that poses a direct threat to basic freedoms and human rights. Far from promoting bigotry or opposing freedom of religion, anticlericalist opposition to Islam embraces the sacred principle:

that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.
[Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom, written in 1777 and adopted into law by Virginia Legislature in 1786]

Nobel Prize winning author V.S. Naipaul has written (in his book Beyond Belief, as well as elsewhere) that not only is Islam intrinsically imperialistic, but "There probably has been no imperialism like that of Islam and the Arabs....Islam seeks as an article of the faith to erase the past." Naipaul's thesis is that Islam has far outstripped any form of Western colonialism in terms of the cultural devastation wrought in those parts of the world that have been conquered "in the name of the most merciful, the most compassionate bla bla bla ...." The very word, "Islam", after all, means nothing more and nothing less than "submission."

2. Are All The Enemies Of My Enemies Necessarily My Friends?

Xenophobia: Muslim immigrants in Europe have been the target of right-wing xenophobia for decades. Two of the more famous players in this game have been the British National Front (founded in 1967) and Jean Marie le Pen's Front National (founded in 1972). Both of those groups follow the formula of appealing to racist sentiments among the white working class. These racist appeals are directed primarily against Muslim immigrants. Both groups also play on the resentment engendered by the decline and fall of the British and French Empires, respectively.

But the problem with Islam is not that it is "foreign" or "non-white" or "non-European" or "non-Western." The problem with Islam is that it is totalitarian. And Europe has produced its own indigenous totalitarian ideologies, Fascism and Communism, which are no less totalitarian by virtue of being the inventions of white, Western, Europeans. And Europe has historically, well into the early modern period, been dominated by "our own" religious totalitarianism in the form of Christian theocracy.

Meanwhile, in the United States the same xenophobic right-wing tendency that howls about Muslim immigrants in Europe is just as up in arms about immigrants from Mexico and Central America, even though these are good Christians!

Religious intolerance: In the United States, Christian fundamentalists are among the loudest critics of "Islamofascism" and "Islamification". Evangelical Christian preacher Franklin Graham (Billy's eldest son) has been predictably excoriated for stating simple truths about Islam such as

"The persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries. The Koran provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world. Conversions from Islam to any other faith are often punishable by death."
["My View Of Islam" by Franklin Graham]

Now the truth is still true regardless of whose mouth it comes out of. But in the same open letter clarifying his "View of Islam", Graham also declares that

"As a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. I believe in Jesus' statement: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." Christians accept this as the only way to God."

And even though he will never admit it, what Graham states about the Koran providing "ample evidence of that Islam encourages violence," is just as true with respect to the Bible and Christianity. And, in practice, violence and coercion have played almost as large a role in the spread and growth of Christianity as they have in Islam.

Defense of Freedom: Anticlericalists should oppose the spread of Islam on the grounds that it poses a threat to the core principles of personal liberty, human equality, human rights, and democracy. This principled position has nothing whatsoever to do with racism, cultural chauvinism, or religious bigotry. After all, the same kind of criticism now legitimately directed at Islam has historically been leveled at Christianity by those fighting for greater freedom and progressive social change.

It might be helpful to remember that legitimate criticisms of Christianity, especially the harsh and sweeping criticisms coming from the most uncompromising anticlericalists, have always been met with the ridiculous claim that such criticism amounts to "persecution". To this day, Christians in the United States cry "discrimination!" wherever and whenever the basic principle of separation of church and state, enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is scrupulously implemented.

And now Muslims (and their "progressive" apologists) have taken a page right out of the playbook of the Church: every legitimate criticism of Islam is met with knee-jerk accusations of "racism" and "hate speech". The spread of Islam, which poses the greatest threat to religious freedom in the world today, is promoted and justified in the name of .... religious freedom!

Finally, for now, a very brief note on the question: how real is the threat posed by Islam in the United States?

The Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims that there are 7 million Muslims in the US (a little more than 2% of the population). Siraj Wahhaj, who sits on the Board of CAIR, is a Brooklyn born imam who once told an audience of Muslims in New Jersey (in 1992) that "if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." It's also interesting to note that in 1995 Wahhaj testified as a character witness for Omar Abdel-Rahman, who is currently serving a life sentence for his role in the first World Trade Center bombing.

Future installments in the series A Plague On Both Their Houses are tentatively planned to include:

3. Islam + Democracy = Totalitarianism
Srsly. "To be honest, the people prefer the Taliban." Afghan Tribal Elder

4. A Very Brief History of Anticlericalism
More on Thomas Paine, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Jose Marti, David Hume, etc.

5. Liberal Anticlericalism vs. Racist Anglo-Saxon Anti-Papism
The Ku Klux Klan were anti-Catholic, but they were hardly liberal anticlericals.

6. What about other religions?
Why opposing "all religions" is a dead end -- and an act of intellectual cowardice.

Building A Mosque On Shifting Sands

First we were told that building a Mosque at Ground Zero is a grand idea because of the symbolism it would entail and the message it would send.

Then we were told that, you know, it's, uh, not really a Mosque, and it's, uh, not really at Ground Zero. Really.

First we were told that the Mosque is being built by people who are opposed to extremism and terrorism.

Then we were told that anyone who tries to determine whether or not extremists and supporters of terrorism are involved in building the Mosque is a racist and un-American.

First we were told that no one anticipated that there would be any opposition to building a Mosque at Ground Zero.

Then we learned that those who are building the Mosque and those who support them kept their plans secret for months (years?) because they were afraid of the response.

First we were told that a thousand years ago Cordoba was a city of brotherly love and diversity, and a shining oasis of religious tolerance.

Then we learned that a thousand years ago Cordoba was the capital of an Islamic theocracy.

First we were told that only far-right extremist Sarah Palin loving wingnut neanderthals oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

Then we learned that the majority of New York City residents, the majority of New York State residents, and the majority of Americans oppose the Ground Zero Mosque.

First we were told that, well, OK, sure, people may have differing opinions, and it's only to be expected that some people don't like the idea. But this is America, and that's what makes us great and free, you know?

Then we were told that anyone who doesn't like the idea is a bigot who doesn't believe in the most basic constitutional guarantees of rights and freedoms.

Please, try to keep up.

Lars Hedegaard & Lifting the Veil on Sexual Assault

"Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women’s rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote."
[Geert Wilders, London, March 5, 2010]

One of Kristina Aamand's parents is Arab, the other is Danish. One of Asif Uddin's parents is Pakistani, the other is Indian. They are both Muslims, and they are both Danish citizens.

In 2007 Aamand and Uddin (who also happen to married to each other) published the book Mødom på Mode ("Virginity in Fashion"). That book presents six reports on the status and treatment of young women and girls in Denmark's immigrant communities, focusing on "custom, culture and norms, gender perception and morality in a collective family structure." In particular, the reports focused on the issue of female virginity.

Aamand is a trained nurse and social worker. She has worked as a research assistant and social counsellor at the rape crisis centre at Copenhagen University Hospital, where she developed and executed an information campaign Løft sløret for seksuelle overgreb ("Lifting the Veil on Sexual Assault"), targeted to minorities and professionals.

Aamand and Uddin's book, Mødom på Mode, includes first hand accounts of sexual abuse in Denmark's Muslim immigrant communities, especially the rape of minor girls by male family members.

Aamand has also created the NewHymen.dk website, to educate the public about beliefs and practices concerning virginity, and especially the issues of "virginity tests" performed by medical personnel, and so-called "reconstructive hymen surgery". (She also has a blog in Danish.)

In December, 2009 Lars Hedegaard, a Danish historian who is the co-founder of the Free Press Society (Trykkefrihedsselskabet), was interviewed by Asger Trier Engberg for the blog snaphanen.dk. The audio of the original interview (in English) is available at Engberg's website: rubicon.dk.

In that interview, Hedegaard made reference to incidents of sexual assault such as those documented in Aamand and Uddin's book. Because of this, Lars Hedegaard has been accused of being a racist!

Soon after the interview both Hedegaard and Engberg issued public statements responding to attempts to systematically misrepresent what Hedegaard had said. Hedegaard is accused of racism primarily because he refuses to accept the false distinction between Islam and so-called "Islamism." (Even though neither Islam nor Islamism, whatever they might be, and however they might be the same or different, are races!) Hedegaard does, however, emphatically insist that he scrupulously distinguishes between individual Muslims, most of whom are decent human beings to whom the crime of raping a child is unimaginable, and, on the other hand, the Muslim religion as a totalitarian ideology which encourages systematic abuse, including physical and sexual abuse, of women and girls.

I strongly encourage anyone reading this to look at Lars Hedegaard's own words in defense of his position "that family rapes of Muslim girls is a serious and widespread phenomenon." In addition to the research already mentioned he cites writings by prominent Muslim women, a study commissioned by the North American Council for Muslim Women, documented cases of "honor killings" among Muslim immigrants in Europe, and many other sources.

Today, August 3rd, the Copenhagen Public Prosecutor's office announced that Lars Hedegaard is being formally charged with violating Paragraph 266b of the Danish Penal Code. This section of Danish law prohibits "expressing and spreading racial hatred." More specifically the law "covers any threatening, vilifying or insulting statement intended for the general public or a wide circle of persons." More information on Paragraph 266b and be found at the website of the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance.

Anne Rice Still Doesn't Get It

Below are two excepts from Gerd Ludemann's Intolerance and the Gospel: Selected Texts from the New Testament, published by Prometheus Books in 2006.

1. From pages 208-209:
[T]olerance and intolerance are not directly related to power: it is not necessarily the case that a powerful majority becomes intolerant and those in the minority favor tolerance. Rather, the phenomenon we have seen seems to reflect the nature and the structure of the Christian faith. I suggest that the intolerant spirit of the faith, latent in its inherited monotheism, was aggravated and focused by exclusivist claims about Jesus Christ. Surely, intolerance seems to be characteristic of all religions that proclaim the unity of God, whereas tolerance is mostly at home among polytheistic religions. As Arthur Schopenhauer insightfully observed,

"Indeed, intolerance is essential only to monotheism; an only God is by nature a jealous God wh owill not allow another to live. On the other hand, polytheistic Gods are naturally tolerant; they live and let live. In the first place, they gladly tolerate their colleagues, the Gods of the same religion, and this tolerance is afterwards extened even to foreign Gods who are, accordingly, hospitably received and later admiteed, in some cases, to an equality of rights. And instance of this is seen in the Romans who willingly admitted and respected Phrygian, Egyptian, and other foreign Gods. Thus it is only the monotheistic religoins that furnish us with the spectacle of religious wars, religious persecutions, courts for trying heretics, and also with that of iconoclasm, the destruction of images of foreign Gods, the demolition of Indian temples and Egyptian colossi that had looked at the sun for three thousand years; all this because their jealous God had said: 'Thou shalt make no graven image,' and so on." [Religion: A Dialogue (1851)]

2. From page 259:
[I]ntolerance seems to be an inherent, even necessary ingredient of the Christian religion. The noted theologian Karl Barth says it quite openly: "No sentence is more dangerous of revolutionary than that God is One and there is no other like Him. Let this sentence be uttered in a such a way that it is heard and grasped, and at once 450 prophets of Baal are always in fear of their lives. There is no more room now for what the recent past called toleration. Beside God there are only His creatures or false gods, and beside faith in Him there are religions only as religions of superstition, error, and finally irrelegion." Clearly it would be misleading to think that freedom in general and freedom of religion specifically are the consequences of the Christian message. Indeed, the religious tradition that claims as its founder the Prince of Peace has through the centuries shown an inability to endure other religious viewpoints. And this is as true today as even, despite the protestations of the church leaders who like to have it appear otherwise in order to retain their welcome within the institutions of power that comprise the secular state.

Anti-Defamation League Comes Out Against Ground Zero Mosque

Move over Sarah Palin.

In a move sure to cause liberal apologists for Islam to fall to the ground twitching and foaming at the mouth (oh, it's starting already, I see), the Anti-Defamation League has come out with a statement that not only calls for the Ground Zero Mosque to be built somewhere else, but also calls for further investigations into who is behind the Mosque project and where the money is coming from. Good for them.

Here is the full statement from the ADL website:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.

We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.

However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

Even More on "Not AT Ground Zero"??

The photo below gives an idea of the actual proximity of the proposed Ground Zero Mosque location (in what was formerly the Burlington Coat Factory building) to Ground Zero itself. Notice in particular the location of the remains of World Trade Center Building Number 7:



Here is WTC 7 (still standing) during the collapse of the North Tower (WTC 1):



And here is the rubble left after the collapse of WTC 7, 1 block from proposed site of the Ground Zero Mosque:

Anne Rice: Apostate

Almost a full year ago I blogged about being surprised and delighted to discover Anne Rice's book reviews at Amazon. This was in spite of the fact that I had never read any of her novels, and also in spite of the fact that she was, at the time, a Christian, and often wrote about Christianity in her reviews. I found her writing to be engaging, highly intelligent and refreshingly honest and direct.

I was especially blown away to read such a thoughtful and positive review of Jan Assman's Moses the Egyptian, written by an outspoken Christian!

But now, well, I just might be in love. Below is, verbatim, what Ms. Rice posted on Facebook yesterday:

For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten ...years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

A few minutes later, she posted this:

As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of ...Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.

All I can think to say is: Jesus Christ on a bicycle. And wouldn't "Apostate" make a great title for an Anne Rice novel? Or a memoir?