New Year's Eve: Cee Lo Green Changes 'Imagine' Lyrics to be 'Pro' Religion.

I was watching CNN's New Year's Eve special with Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin and at one point, Cee Lo Green starts to sing 'Imagine' by John Lennon. I braced myself for him to change the lyric when it got to the 'no religion too' part and sure enough, he changed it to 'all religion's true'. Really?

No, all religions can't be true, Silly Lo, and why did you feel the need to sing a freethought song by a dead musician, peace activist (and atheist) and then change his lyric? If you feel the need to change the song, why sing it at all? This is disrespectful to the song, its intent and Lennon's legacy—not to mention all non-believers. There's a popular song written by one of our own and religious asshats keep changing its lyrics.

Some theists and shallow-thinkers don't understand the uproar over the annoyance at this, but here's a little history lesson for them...we atheists have been dealing with 'little' changes with much bigger consequences.

How do theists feel about our paper money being restored from 'In God We Trust' back to the original Latin, 'E Pluribus Unem' or 'From Many, One'? The latter message is all-inclusive, where the religious message makes non-Christians and non-believers into second class citizens. Paper money was changed in 1957 and there are still 'clean' dollars to be found as proof. This is just a small phrase, so why do people freak when the attempt is made to restore paper money with its original motto?

Christians even changed the lyrics of our Pledge of Allegiance, as written by Francis Bellamy, a pledge which was originally secular. Now, it is effectively an unconstitutional public school, state-employee-led prayer because Christians added 'under God' in 1954 as a reaction to the Red Scare and McCarthyism. If lyrics aren't a big deal, why is there such resistance to restoring the pledge from the 'under god' version to the original secular version? Why did Eisenhower allow Christian special-interests to change the original secular pledge?

Here is the original pledge as written by Francis Bellamy before it was turned into prayer which makes non-Christians and non-believers into second-class citizens who, if they opt-out, put themselves at risk of castigation and singling-out for special abuse:

I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic, for which it stands
one nation, indivisible
with liberty and justice for all.

There's good reason some of us are sensitive to these changes. Our pledge and money are STILL infected with religious dogma from secular, all-inclusive roots—and it hasn't stopped there.

All religions CANNOT be true, but they can all be false.

--

Koran Cookout

Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville Florida had planned a Koranic cookout on Saturday, 9/11, which would be the 9th anniversary of the September 11 attacks by Muslim extremists.

All Terry Jones wants to do is burn some privately-owned Korans as a form of protest, a protected-right in America. It's destructive, but it's also powerful symbolism.

Let's keep things in perspective here. On 9/11/2001, 19 members of an Islamic death cult, driven by their religious ideas and with religious rituals the night before (including shaving their body hair to enter Islamic paradise) used our own American civilian-filled planes as missiles, taking out important symbolic targets such as the World Trade Center, damaging the Pentagon (our seat of national security), were probably going to attempt to take out the White House, and killed thousands of Americans and started what is effectively a holy war. Cheering crowds in the middle east celebrated their 'victory' over the west, including members of the marty's families, as the death of a martyr in Islam helps secure a spot in Paradise for his family. If this was just a group of rogue extremists, how were they so well funded, celebrated so widely, and where were the outcries from Muslim 'moderates' afterward?

Are people actually concerned about the symbolic and *legal* Koran-burning by some Pastor on the 9th anniversary of 9/11?

Again, this is powerful symbolism, but the reason we need to allow this freedom of speech and protest is because while I may not exactly with Pastor Jones's reasoning (or his own wacky faith), I do feel Islam needs to be reminded that their laws don't apply to secular America, nor do they apply to individuals who disagree with them.

The fact that Muslims often will kill to intimidate others into submission is all the more reason to never back down to their threats. You can't make an army of those who follow a death cult happier by submitting to their Draconian laws, and they're already plenty motivated to destroy those who oppose them.

A symbolic protest-burning of the Koran 9 years after the 9/11 attacks is by no means going to fuel any more fires than are already fueled by the ongoing war. What do we care if our enemy combatants are offended? We're already at war with the militarized forces of Islam *because* of the 9/11 attacks, and let's not forget, they tried to take out the World Trade Center in 1993...it was just lucky for us that they failed. A legal protest by one American and his church-group is little to be concerned about.

9/11 already happened and we've been at war for years, and Osama Bin Laden remains at large. We are currently in a holy war with Islam (even if people wish it weren't the case). While not all Muslims are extremists, moderate Muslims should understand the symbolism behind Paster Jones's upcoming Koranic BBQ, and American Muslims who understand our rights as Americans known that book or flag burning (of your own private property) is protected 'speech'. Any reasonable Muslim should understand the situation we're in as a nation....and should be more concerned about reforming Islam than trying to silence its critics.

If someone wants to burn their own copies of the Bible, I say, go for it. If you want to burn your own copies of Darwin's 'Origin of Species', you have that right, even if I disagree with you.

While I generally disagree with this form of protest simply because I think it's a waste of paper and materials, I do understand the power of symbolism. Muslims are fond of burning effigies of Bush or Obama or the American flag. Desecration or symbolism is something they *understand*, perhaps this is why there's such an uproar.

The very fact that Muslims go ape-nuts crazy when their 7th century ideals are offended is all the more reason to never relent, lest they actually get what they want: Submission. This is what Islam literally means, 'Submission'. This was explained by Ibn Warraq, author of 'Why I am not a Muslim' and Parvin Darabi in her book, 'Rage Behind the Veil'. Both are former Muslims and who shed much-needed light on the real goings-on in Islam, which is the inside look at Islam the west often doesn't see (though we see the destruction inspired by it).

What is first a protest against book burning symbolism, a protected right in America, can easily become the protest against women not wearing Hijab, or any kind of Muslim criticism in books or other media. It is somewhat of a slippery slope, but modern day people with free-speech rights will *always* offend Islam. We have to understand that there's simply no way to avoid offending some radical Muslims, especially since we're at war with some of them and still trying to find Osama Bin Laden (unfinished business). To focus on minor offenses via free-speech is to miss the point. Islam needs to change and reform and join the rest of us in the 21st century. Like a spoiled child who finally receives discipline, it's ill-advised to refrain from discipline simply because they make a loud noise.

That said, let's remember that Muslims killed Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for merely making a critical movie about Islam entitled 'Submission'. Van Gogh was stabbed through his chest and shot in the streets by a Muslim extremist. Ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote about this in her book, 'Infidel', and she is still under threat of death if certain Muslims find her due to her friendship and work with Mr. Van Gogh.

Some Muslims wanted to kill Salman Rushdie for writing 'Satanic Verses', and I am sure there are those who are still seeking to end his life, for merely believing enough in Islam to fulfill the fatwah for his death issued by Muslim leaders.

Cartoonists such as Danish Kurt Westergaard who dared portray the prophet Mohammed were threatened with death as well. Should we never dare draw Mohammed again? No.

The best way to combat this ridiculous extremism is to respond in large numbers and insist on defending our rights to free-expression....Islamic law does not apply to non-Muslims...especially those in free, secular countries like America.



While some people like Pastor Terry Jones seek to use their Constitutional rights to hold a Koran-burning in protest on 9/11, something I think many would understand, Muslims often seek to silence and kill those who offend them.

Muslims do not get to abridge the rights of non-Muslims, especially in a secular nation, simply because they're offended. As long as Islam is unreformed and killing people for merely expressing ideas, it's all the more reason to offend them early and often, and challenge their barbaric ideas and oppression at every turn.

Haiti and Chile

The Earthquake in Haiti and Chile may be, depending on your worldview, a result of the impartial and inexorable movement of continental plates or perhaps the work of an angry god, but either way, the people in Haiti need our help. The non-god-infected amongst us can donate to secular charities knowing full well that our monies won't be spent on god-bothering whilst offering charity, or holding help ransom demanding Christian conversion or even worse, handing out useless solar-polared Bibles or taxing the relief efforts by showing up nearly empty-handed (like some Scientologists have been purported to do recently).

Haitians don't need your gods, they need help. Secular givers can visit Richard Dawkins's relief site to donate easily and painlessly through Paypal and other means:

GivingAid.RichardDawkins.net

Paypal is even waiving fees for donations.

In other news, Pat Robertson had this to say about the Haitian disaster:

They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal [...] ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other."

Ah yes, his usual douchery, and it's nothing new. Look Christians, if you feel your religion doesn't apply in 'natural disasters', then why credit your god with the good stuff? Likewise, if you do take seriously the idea that a god controls all, then he necessarily creates all earthquakes to his specifications....down to the location, timing and intensity....and yes, death toll.

Here's a little ditty from a book called the King James Bible, Isaiah 45:7...

'I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things'.

That's right, it's right there in the bible. God creates it all, and even if you read one of the new fancy copywritten versions of the Holey Babble which try to dumb down the embarrassment of this quote, the fact remains that an all-powerful, all-knowing creator can't *not* be in control and know everything which will happen, meaning he's probably not all that good, and not worthy of your faith.

That said, Pat Robertson's foundational beliefs are just wrong, and his wacky magical delusions can be safely ignored, as long as he isn't actually acting on his beliefs (or inciting others to act on them). We can safely ignore the lunacy of religion, but that's 'safe'. The best thing to do when you hear wild claims of divine credit is to treat it like the lunacy as it is....this sort of nutball thinking needs to be challenged, early and often. Not challenging it often enough provides as Sam Harris might put it, 'comfort and cover' for the nutjobs who say crazy things reading the same Bible as the fundies.

Just as a ranting toddler-God™ might create a beautiful puppy, he seemingly enjoys wanton destruction just as well, if not better.

No matter what you believe, expect to be challenged if what you're saying is without foundation...and no matter what, sometimes people need your help. Thankfully, there's a way to help the people of Haiti or Chile without wrapping it in Bibles and fairy tales.

-dB-