Islam's Problem With The Human Body.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was in Rome on Monday to solidify relations with Italy. In the wake of the revolutionary multi-national nuclear deal with Iran that saw the removal of crippling economic sanctions, this was largely a friendly visit to normalize dialogue between Iran and one of Europe's biggest power players.

Unfortunately, for all of their supposed prestige and sovereignty, it seems the Iranian president and his delegation simply couldn't handle the sight of naked statues.

In the lead up to a press conference between Rouhani and Italian Premier Matteo Renzi at the Capitoline Museum, officials within the Italian government decided cover up various nude statues within the facility. They were afraid that the nude sculptures would offend the Iranians, taking into consideration their Islamic beliefs.

Yet again, the Islamic faith proves itself to be archaic and ridiculous.

Not only was art censored for Rouhani, but alcohol was also restricted from being served at an official state dinner held in his honor.

How can anyone take seriously someone of such a sensitive and shallow nature? Is Rouhani not a grown man? Does the sight of a naked man or woman send his brain into total meltdown? Can someone else not drink an alcoholic beverage in his presence without inciting a holy war?

Obviously, the answer is no. And yet, this man is to lead an entire nation.

This is yet another skid-mark in the long and winding catastrophe that is the Muslim existence. The human body is only offensive if you demonize it through shame and ridicule. Though, considering the stone-age dogma preached within the Quran, that's the harsh reality of this ordeal. There are billions of Muslims on this planet that aren't comfortable in their own skin. They disparage the female image especially -- hiding it in varying degrees from one country to the next. This is no way to live life, dreadfully afraid of human anatomy.

The image of a naked person is only as offensive as you make it out to be.

Do you find the following image objectionable?

Move Over Rudolph, It's The Yule Goat!

Believe it or not, there's a goat connected with the Christmas holiday season. Unless you're from Scandinavia, you've probably never heard of it. I'm talking about the Yule Goat.

Originating with pre-Christian Scandinavians and northern Europeans, the Yule Goat is a symbol of the harvest season carried into winter. Tradition states that once the last batch of grain had been harvested, it would be saved for the annual Yule celebration. This bundle of grain was deemed the Julbocken, which translates to Yule Goat. The symbol of the goat was highly regarded at the time, especially by the Norse. This is because of the relation to the thunder god Thor, whom rode a mighty chariot pulled by two magical goats.

As the years went on, the symbol of the goat spread to other aspects of the winter holiday season. During the 11th Century, actors performed simple plays wherein Saint Nicholas would lead a goat man around by a leash. This was meant to symbolize keeping the devil under control.

Continuing through as late as the 20th Century, these same plays would grow and evolve further. The Yule Goat took on a more whimsical and tawdry nature. Large groups of actors would dance down streets and past homes in villages. They would sing, prance and play innocent pranks on their neighbors. The Yule Goat was typically part of this revelry, filling the role of a raucous beast-man demanding treats and presents from people.

By the 19th Century, the Yule Goat had also taken on a similar role as Santa Claus. He'd come around during the holidays and leave small gifts for children. Often times, the two characters were depicted together.

Today, the Yule Goat is a massively popular symbol representative of both the Christmas and Yule holidays. Throughout Scandinavia, the Yule Goat is just as common a holiday icon as reindeer or snowmen are here in America. Yule Goat ornaments are created from straw and wood with red ribbons tied around their neck and horns.

Don't you think it's a-bbbbbbbbbaaaaahhhhhhh-out time you added a Yule Goat to your Christmas tree?

What In The World Is Frankincense and Myrrh?

"Dude, we totally have to get our gifts to that sweet baby Jesus. He's over THERE!"

Most of us, myself included, have no idea what frankincense and myrrh are. Sure, we've heard of them a thousand times over. As the story goes, the three wise men brought little baby Jesus gold, frankincense and myrrh when he was born. Of course, we all know what gold is and its significance. Yet, frankincense and myrrh have left us collectively scratching our heads.

Turns out, frankincense is nothing more than a milky white resin taken from a tree species of the genus Boswellia, which thrives in the arid, cool areas of the Arabian Peninsula, East Africa and India. Frankincense was used as a perfume, much like what men and women wear today.

Alternatively, myrrh is a reddish resin derived from tree species of the genus Commiphora. They are native to northeast Africa and parts of the Arabian Peninsula. Myrrh was commonly employed at the time as an anointing oil.

Both frankincense and myrrh possess a spicy, alluring aroma when burned for their fragrance. They were also used as symbols of holiness when gifted to royalty. Of course, Jesus was viewed as the king of kings, hence the receipt of such bountiful gifts.

Yes Virginia, Atheists Do Celebrate Christmas.

Considering the subject matter, I feel I must provide a simple preface. The following article is in no way intended to be inflammatory or disrespectful. In fact, the matter of religion plays no part in the explanation I'm about to provide. While I may be an atheist, I believe in and will defend the inalienable right to worship how you see fit. Religion is a highly personal matter. Only you can decide for yourself if belief in a higher power is something you want in your life.

As an out-of-the-closet atheist, I'm sometimes asked if I celebrate Christmas. When I affirm that I do, the follow-up question is typically...

"How can you celebrate Christmas when you don't believe in God?"

Honestly, I completely understand the reason for being confused. For someone that's had little to no interaction with a non-believer, it can all be slightly difficult to wrap your head around. While I obviously can't speak for all atheists, myself and others like me celebrate Christmas for many of the same reasons as the religious. Let me explain.

Christmas has always sat on the fence between being a religious celebration and a secular festival. Sure, you can take joy in the birth of Christ and the miracle in that little town of Bethlehem. Yet, you can also appreciate the message and sentiment of the entire holiday season. Hoping for peace on earth, doing acts of charity, trying to help your fellow man, spending time with friends and family, eating a feast with your loved ones, trading gifts, decorating a tree, stringing up lights, waiting on Santa Claus to arrive -- these are all things purely secular in nature. Belief in a higher power isn't necessary to admire and encourage these practices.

Christmas isn't just a religious holiday; it's an international ritual. Folks from all corners of the planet celebrate the season of giving, with varying religious and cultural tenets. To say Christmas can only be truly understood by Christians is massively short-sighted. Jewish people participate in Christmas. Muslims participate in Christmas. Even Shintoists and Hindus participate in Christmas. Not because it's a religious holiday, but because Christmas is an observance of all the potential good within humanity.

Few realize that the festival of Christmas has been celebrated for many thousands of years, long before it ever had that specific name. Many of the elements found within the holiday season were directly adapted from ancient Germanic feasts and the Roman holiday of Saturnalia. Yule, a pagan ritual from Scandinavia, also provided large portions of the season (chiefly the Christmas Tree). It wasn't until the Middle Ages that Christmas was even loosely organized as a religious holiday, formally adapting many of the traditions from other Winter Solstice festivals. In terms of America's link to the Christmas holiday, our nation didn't even begin to take an interest until the 1820's. It wasn't until 1885 that the US Government finally declared Christmas a national holiday.

You see, the Christmas season isn't purely relegated to one special holy day. Christmas transcends the boundaries of religious doctrine. It's a cultural phenomenon that touches everyone, believer and non-believer alike. I enjoy seeing happy children and trees covered in twinkle lights. Presents wrapped in pretty paper excite me. Christmas carols do bring joy to my heart. Seeing people be nicer to each other makes me feel a little bit better inside. Mailing Christmas cards (and yes, I send a lot of them) absolutely delights me. And yet, what I choose to believe or not believe has no bearing on any of this.

As an atheist, I celebrate Christmas because it's just as much my tradition as it is yours. When I say to someone "Merry Christmas", I'm passing along tidings of joy and hope for a better tomorrow. As far as I'm concerned, that's what Christmas is all about.

Liberals Must Admit Islamic Terrorism Exists.

An ISIS parade in the Syrian town of Tel Abyad.

I'm a fairly progressive guy. Any of you that know me are well aware of this fact. As such, I'm not afraid to exercise the rights granted to me by this fair nation. The First Amendment is one of the greatest protections against tyranny that I have as an American. While I might not always agree with US Government policy on matters, both foreign and domestic, I am a staunch defender of this nation and the principles it was founded upon. Thankfully, I live in a country where I am allowed to express my thoughts in a manner free from physical detainment or harm.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that's something we can all get behind.

As a progressive, I try my best to promote the notions of equality, justice and constant learning. I want to live in a land where healthcare is available to everyone and administered as a not-for-profit public utility. I want public education to operate in a similar manner, allowing everyone the chance to obtain higher education. I want our roads and motorways to be maintained for our benefit, all the while providing necessary employment to anyone who wants a job. We pay taxes for the common good. If not to support the aforementioned desires, then for what other reason more appropriate? I want women to have full control over their own bodies; contraceptives should always be available and abortion should be the choice of the mother faced with a difficult predicament. Individuals, no matter their gender or race, should be allowed the opportunity to wed in a legal sense, as to provide legitimate defense in matters of healthcare, death and child custody. And yes, I even support the right to worship in whatever manner you see fit, or to not worship at all. I might be an atheist whom dislikes the concept of religion, but I resolutely support a person's privilege to practice it. As long as your religious beliefs don't encroach upon my life, our government or the administration of the public welfare, you can worship however and whatever you want. I support the rights of everyone, whether I agree with them or not.

So what am I getting at?

What I'm trying to illustrate is that I'm about as liberal as a citizen could be. Though, I literally cringe at such a label. I don't like to employ banner-wielding designations when it comes to ideologies. Let a man stand on his own two feet; take him for what he is. His ideas should succeed or fail based upon their own merit. All that considered, I've been called a liberal more than once in the past. For the sake of this article, I'm just going to go with it.

Here's my issue...

You can't take Islam out of the Islamic State.

So many fellow progressives are quick to defend Islam in the face of global terrorism. Such a position exists as a modern tent pole of liberalism. Many will assert that terrorism, like that committed by the Islamic State (aka ISIL or ISIS), is not Islamic in itself. They're not Muslims, just terrorists with a bloody axe to grind. The Islamic State does not represent Islam.

Such progressives couldn't be more incorrect. As a progressive, I wholeheartedly demand better of those whom think like myself. You can't call yourself a progressive and ignore Islamic brutality.

The Islamic State, for all that it stands for, is the living, breathing embodiment of what the Quran prescribes for Muslims. I've thoroughly researched the political and social platforms which ISIS touts. If anything, this terrorist group exerts the message of the Quran in as literal a way as virtually possible. The Islamic State ardently follows the prophecy of Muhammad; they refer to this prerogative as the Prophetic methodology. Being that ISIS is rooted in Salafism, a branch of Sunnism, it subscribes to a reverential emulation of the Prophet and his earliest followers.

Consider the members of the Islamic State as the Amish -- they practice what they preach, down to the very last letter. If you're looking for the group of Muslims that most closely observe the message of the Quran, then ISIS is it.

While I can understand the motivation pushing progressives to detach religion from terrorism, I find their shortsightedness to be terribly harmful. The liberal mind should desire to support freedom from oppression, the right to a fair trial, the opportunity to exist without dogmatic enslavement. ISIS supports the murder of all whom stand in the way of the apocalyptic prophecy laid forth in the Quran. They practice the stoning of women whom are victims of rape; the beheading of those whom don't submit to their supreme authority. Any other group of terrorists which behaved in such a way, were they to be Christian or Jewish or even atheist, would be categorically denounced by liberals as barbaric.

So why does Islam get a free pass?

For far too long, progressive thinkers have turned a blind eye to the Muslim world in the name of religious freedom. Their position being if Muslims choose to subjugate their women as possessions, then so be it. If they choose to murder innocents in the name of their prophet, then so be it. If they choose to shoot little girls in the face because they want an education, then so be it. That is the Muslim way.

I'm here to tell you -- not all cultures are created equal. Some should not be respected or tolerated. This holds especially true for Islam. It is not disrespectful or bigoted to turn a critical eye to Muslim world. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Islam is no different than Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism or any other religious group. If you're a progressive that supports equality, then you must critically analyze and question all ideologies equally, no matter their origin. Any other way would be hypocritical, verging on farcical nepotism.

Admittedly, the vast majority of Muslims fail to staunchly practice the Quran like the Islamic State. Like most Christians in America, they pick and choose which parts they want to follow to their own comfort or benefit. Most Muslim sects use the Quran more as a guide and less as an instruction manual. I've met and broken bread with Muslims in the past -- they are a polite and caring people. Many are often misunderstood, unfairly because of their language or code of dress. While I don't support the Islamic tendency to treat women as prized treasures to be constantly guarded and shepherded by men of superiority, at least a Muslim woman in America has the option to leave her situation behind should she choose to do so. Muslim women in foreign lands unfortunately do not share in this advantage, though. I certainly hope the Muslim world continues to evolve with a sense of equality and fairness -- many predominately Islamic states have experienced such a revolution, though this is certainly in the minority.

A makeshift memorial outside the Bataclan concert hall in Paris following the terrorist attacks which claimed over 120 people.

I ask all progressives to call a spade a spade. The Islamic State is most certainly Islamic. The terrorism committed by the Islamic State is precisely Islamic terrorism. Don't be afraid to identify injustice where you see it. Most importantly, do not wilt under the pressure of alleged liberals with a subversive and wholly uninformed agenda. To examine Islam is not Islamophobic at all. Call the enemy by its name. Anything less is an exercise in irresponsible cowardice, serving to diminish the forward-looking concept of progressivism.

For more information on ISIS and their pursuits, I suggest reading this in-depth article by Graeme Wood at The Atlantic.

Sweet Old Lady Morphs Into Hateful Christian Fundamentalist.

There I was, approaching the entrance of Wal-Mart earlier this afternoon and acquiring a shopping basket. An older woman of diminutive stature entered just before I did. She retrieved a sanitary wipe to cleanse her basket's handlebar, then passed me a wipe out of courtesy. It was quite nice of her, I thought; I was going to get a wipe anyway.

She complimented me on the color of my red hair, to which I gracefully responded and explained that it's gotten darker the older I've gotten. Explaining further, my hair used to be a brighter shade of red than my beard is now. Carefully ruffling my beard, I pointed out that my chin hair is starting to turn white. I'm getting older!

Turning to Crystal, the granny asked if she was my girlfriend. I confirmed that she was my spouse, to which the older lady complimented her elegant beauty. I tend to agree; Crystal is gorgeous.

And then... our friendly rendezvous all fell apart.

Her next question was "Do you two have a church at home?"

I felt a lump of disappointment swell in my throat. In an effort to side-skirt the question and politely escape from her crafty claws of entrapment, I stated that there was indeed a church near our home. In this, I did not lie; there are multiple churches within a mile of my house. What followed was a frightening, uncomfortable and altogether unpleasant series of questions and diatribes.

• Crystal and I must uplift each other to better serve the lord.
• We must have children.
• Our future children must have the message of Jesus Christ DRILLED (she said this very emphatically) into their minds, no questions asked. They MUST go to church and they MUST believe, or else.
• We must not have friends whom aren't Christian, otherwise they will drag us to hell.
• Non-believers are definitely not to be tolerated and should not be allowed to live. They're a one way ticket to hell.
• Judgment day is coming, sooner than we think.
• The time for Christians to stand together and defend God from all sinners and non-believers is coming, too.
• We must spread the word of Christ wherever and whenever possible.

I could go on and on, but you get the picture. She transformed from a sweet, innocent old woman into this hateful, fire-and-brimstone witness.

Now you probably know me... I'm an atheist. Typically, I'd have countered this sort of venomous hatred and put her in her place. Considering how old and frail she was, I simply couldn't do it. Honestly, I was worried that anything I'd say in response would literally give her a heart attack or stroke. Imagine how terrified of me she might have been if the nice guy with red hair turned out to be a blasphemous non-believer! The sudden shock could have sent her into cardiac arrest!

So, I bit my tongue, swallowed my pride and nodded in agreement. Slowly inching my basket farther and farther away, I finally saw an opening in her spiel and escaped with a "Have a nice day!" Boy, if she only knew the truth about who she was talking to.

I find it strange how so many people accept this sort of activity as acceptable. Let's swap the roles in this encounter. Pretend I was the one who used a friendly opportunity with a stranger to spread the 'word' of atheism. I'd be held before a judge for disturbing the peace, chastised by the local news and practically run out of town. Thankfully, I can discuss such matters on the world wide web without fear of persecution.

Who really exists behind the mask?

Consider all of the unknown people whom we walk by every day. While out shopping, eating lunch, visiting the library, at school, at work, at the dentist -- how many of those people are Christian? How many are Jewish, Hindu or Muslim? How many are agnostics or atheists? There's a disturbing facade of normalcy that provides refuge to monsters and marauders of free thought from all walks of life. Yet, their particular brand of reality makes it all okay.

I tell you what... I'll never look at another sweet old lady again without wondering if she's a vile fundamentalist whom would rather see me dead.

'Trunk-Or-Treat' Is An Attack On Halloween.

"While the origins of "trunk-or-treating" are a mystery, the benefits of them are well-known: less walking for little kids, a safer environment for Halloween, and fun for everyone!"

That's a direct quote from a Latter-Day Saints website I recently encountered while researching the origins of "trunk-or-treat". Originally, I wrote a completely different opening to this article, but discovering this particular LDS website altered my plans. I figured hell, why not address these three meager reasons head on? It would be a fantastic way to express my own concerns with trunk-or-treating.

1. Less walking for little kids. Seriously? The whole point of Halloween is to WALK TO EACH AND EVERY HOUSE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, RING A DOOR BELL AND SHOUT "TRICK OR TREAT!" Who thought this crap up? If you're going to gut the very essence of the holiday, why even celebrate it?!
2. A safer environment for Halloween. This one really makes me laugh, honestly. Not once have I ever known any child to be kidnapped or murdered on Halloween. In fact, I had a hard time finding record of any major crimes against children committed explicitly on/because of Halloween. Think about it... every adult in your neighborhood KNOWS that children will be out and about. They're already on alert and watchful over the wee little ones. Much less, why would a kidnapper or child killer perpetrate their devious plan on THE MOST PUBLICLY VISIBLE CHILD-THEMED HOLIDAY OF THE YEAR?!
3. Fun for everyone. This is just about the lamest cop-out reason ever. DUH! Of course Halloween is fun. If it wasn't fun, kids wouldn't want to participate!

I'm going to cut right to the chase. Trunk-or-treating sucks. Instead of celebrating Halloween the right way, trunk-or-treating eliminates every single important aspect of the celebration.

• No traveling from house to house to ring door bells and shout "TRICK OR TREAT!"
• No time spent with your siblings or friends walking around in your costume.
• No sense of mystery or excitement derived from VIRTUAL danger (because there isn't any).
• No sense of responsibility or public awareness for children to learn and grow from.
• No way to encounter other kids whom may commit harmless pranks or try to steal your candy, which is a valuable way to learn self confidence.
• No way to see your neighbors' keenly decorated houses, all dressed up in various spooky and haunting ways.
• No jack-o-lanterns on front porches, inviting all the little ghosts and goblins with their eyes aflame.
• No lesson of hard work and diligence to be learned because it REWARDS LAZINESS!

Trunk-or-treating is a lame, worthless attempt to childproof Halloween without any regard for what makes the day so special. It's a white-washing of actual trick-or-treating, thereby further eroding any sense of uniqueness and creativity found within the hearts of children. Much less, it promotes laziness. Instead of patrolling your neighborhood and speaking to your fellow citizens to earn a bag full of candy, you just meander through a parking lot and grab candy from the trunks of cars. Wow... that's absolutely pathetic.

"Come here little kids. I've got free candy. You're gonna spend some time with me in Margaritaville. Maybe I'll let you play 'Find the Salt Shaker'. Giggity!"

Here's another point that absolutely baffles my mind. Many parents claim trunk-or-treating is a safer alternative to Halloween. So let me get this straight... they want kids to be safe by teaching them that they'll be rewarded with candy if they approach a stranger's car? WHAT THE WHAT?!

The concept of trunk-or-treating began in the late '90s with religious organizations. They would hold the event in a parking lot, typically that of a church or private school. Essentially, religious groups saw trunk-or-treating as a way to kill two birds with one stone -- not only could they control the paradigm of Halloween and remove children from an "unsafe" and "unholy" activity, but they could also pass out literature to uninitiated families. That's right... trunk-or-treating's origin rests in a religious assault on Halloween. Go frickin' figure! Trunk-or-treating is especially popular within the Mormon community, whom in many places go so far as to abstain from actually using the name 'Halloween' in relation to the activity. This practice of eliminating 'Halloween' from the event is shared by other religious groups as well. Often, a church will group their trunk-or-treating event with a "Fall Festival". Sheesh... what a joke.

And there you have it my friends. Trunk-or-treating is an affront to Halloween, a wholly American tradition that's rapidly evaporating in our modern politically correct times.

Oklahoma: Atheists and Gays Not Welcome.

There's some outrageous bigotry going on in Oklahoma, but that's no surprise.

A stone monument depicting the Ten Commandments

sits outside the Oklahoma State Capitol Building.

House Bill 1125, which essentially bans atheists from being married, recently passed the Oklahoma State House of Representatives. It is now headed to the Senate, where it will most likely be approved.

How does it work? Well, it's like this. For any new marriage to be recognized, a member of the clergy must approve any and all marriage licenses. Judges and magistrates would have ZERO say in the matter. That means that the power of the legally binding contract of marriage would be solely under the discretion of priests and other respective church leaders. Of course, conservatives, Republicans and religious organizations are jumping for joy over this bill. If approved, it would mean that any clergy member whom did not see fit to wed a couple (meaning homosexuals and atheists) would not have to.

This is a crafty work of legalese meant to circumvent the potential for homosexuals to receive the same marriage benefits as heterosexual couples. They're essentially tacking it onto the backs of atheists as a way around any forthcoming federal legislation. In essence, they get to kill two birds with one stone.

One of the chief supporters of the bill, Republican Dennis Johnson, has been quoted as saying...

"Marriage was not instituted by government. It was instituted by God. There is no reason for Oklahoma or any state to be involved in marriage."

I find it ironic that Mr. Johnson wants to prohibit the bounds of marriage via legislation, but finds that government has no place in the matter. I wonder if he can see the total hypocrisy in that? Have the supporters of this bill even considered that, without a legally binding marriage license, many couples (gay or straight, religious or atheist) would lose health benefits, death benefits, access to community property and child custody? Obviously not.

Perhaps more troubling is the immense power that would be granted to non-elected religious officials whom would act as de facto magistrates of the state government. By officiating the state law in a method that's clearly filtered through religious doctrine, they'd be blatantly violating the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Should House Bill 1125 be passed by the Oklahoma legislature, it will surely make its way to the Supreme Court.

Oklahoma -- a great place to live... unless you're not a heterosexual Christian.

Islamophobia or Bust.

Skyline of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Go ahead... call me Islamophobic.

Coming from the perspective of the modern Western liberal agenda, that may appear to be the case. I don't respect the Islamic way of life. Islam (as a doctrine) promotes the division of economic classes, xenophobia, sexism, female genital mutilation, murder, physical abuse and a host of other terrible things. I digress, though. I am in no way afraid of Islam nor those whom identify as Muslim. In my life, I've met many wonderful Muslims whom were nothing but kind to me. They treated me with respect and politeness. You see, that's the part that perturbed me in the past. How could someone so nice subscribe to a theocracy that has a near infinite number of faults? It makes no sense.

I could show you numerous photos and videos of violent acts committed in the name of Allah. There are more videos of beheadings on the internet than I would ever care to watch -- as if I would want to watch any to begin with. I won't show you such horrors, though. No one should see such a terrible act as a beheading.

You may say...

"But Jared, most Muslims would never commit such heinous acts. Your position is unfair to those people."

And you would be right -- most Muslims would never cut off a person's head or set them on fire. Nor would they use children as martyrs or rape their own daughter.

Here's the issue I have, though.

By being a member of the Islamic faith, you at least partly condone these actions. Through worshiping the Quran as the word of Allah, you agree to the tenets and principles of the religion found within that holy text. Continuing to identify with a group that regularly condones war, rape, murder and martyrdom is highly suspect. All I know is this -- If I were a member of a group that started to rape, pillage and murder, I'd leave that group.

And yes, I realize that many people have no way of leaving their situation, especially in countries that practice Sharia law. To yearn for revolutionary change, but to be stuck in an oppressive society, must be absolute hell.

This routes me back to my question at the beginning of this article. It took me a long time to understand why Muslims, whom are so polite and kind in person, could be members of such a vile ideology. When able to speak independently and without the gaze of other Muslims, the weight of strict adherence to Islam can be lifted. On an individual basis, a Muslim can be free to act like a normal human being. Essentially -- the radical nature of Islam increases in proportion with the size of the population. It's like the old concept of keeping up with the Joneses, but with Islamic undertones. I realize this is only a theory, but it makes sense to me.

Before I go any further, let me clear the air. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and even Buddhism are all guilty of atrocious acts in the name of their faith. When it comes to the concept of shared guilt, I feel the same way about Christians; continued adherence to that faith is a consent to child molestation (however painful that truth may be for you to accept, I stand by it). The same goes with the Jews -- being a practicing Jew implies that you're comfortable, at least on some level, with grown men cutting the foreskin off male genitalia (in some cases using their mouth). I'm not just pointing the finger at Islam. I'm merely highlighting how Islam is the chief offender. One theology has to be the worst... and Islam is it.

All theocracies are guilty.

What really pisses me off is the permission given to Islam by the aforementioned Western liberals. A Jew or a Christian can commit a terrible act in the name of their god and a liberal will call them out on their fundamentalism. Yet, Islam somehow catches a free pass. The liberals defend Islam and say that this is "their culture" and we "don't understand". It's as if criticism of Islam is immediately relegated to the realm of racist hate speech. Automatically, I must be a bigot if I call out the nefarious activities of Muslims.

You couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

For that matter, why should we celebrate a culture that regularly abuses women? That makes them hide their face? That cuts their clitoris off? That keeps them from holding a job or driving a car? That keeps them from speaking or voting or doing anything to better their condition? Is that a culture we should really be celebrating?

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia

I want to highlight the story of King Abdullah's jailed princesses.

Details emerged last year about four daughters of the recently deceased King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. These four princesses (Sahar, Hala, Jawaher and Maha) have been detained under house arrest for over thirteen years. Why? Because they spoke out against the injustices and crimes they saw around them. Their own father decided it best to lock them away. All this because they wanted to reform conditions for women and prisoners held by the state. What kind of father would do that to his own children? A pretty terrible one, if you ask me.

Yet, King Abdullah has been praised by leaders around the globe as a beacon of peace and prosperity in the Middle East. He has been ushered into the afterlife as a proponent of equal rights and social reform. I am completely appalled by these blind statements of support. Abdullah and the kingdom he ruled with an iron fist is yet another example of Islamic barbarianism. No surprise, given you'd be hard pressed to find any member of the United States government willing to even identify the radicals that enacted the Charlie Hebdo attack as Muslims. The terms of dialogue have steadily changed when it comes to international affairs. No longer will you hear government officials say "Islamic terrorists". Nay, now they've become "radicalized terrorists". Even the Islamic State (commonly called ISIS), has been carefully careened into a secular connotation. Our own president has proposed that ISIS does not represent Islam; they're merely fundamentalist radicals claiming to be Muslim.

Members of ISIS poising for a group photo

Hello! Think, McFly! Think! ISIS, if anything, represents one of the purest interpretations of the Islamic faith. Not only do they believe what they worship, but they practice what they preach! What's even more scary is that polling data of Muslims from around the world regularly shows that support for ISIS is broad and substantial.

A page from the Quran

What do I want you to walk away with after reading this article? I want you to understand that you can criticize Islam and not be a bigot. I don't loathe Muslims -- I dislike the Islamic faith. Never be afraid to speak out against vicious savagery.

Except for Raif Badawi, who has been lashed by the Saudi Arabian government for blogging. He has every right to be afraid.

Art Under Fire - The Charlie Hebdo Assault.

I awoke to the news this morning that artists and creators were under attack... in a very real way.

Charlie Hebdo is a weekly satirical newspaper published in Paris, France. It is globally known for its cartoons and humorous articles which poke fun at the absurdity of religion, ultra-conservatism, politics and ideological extremists. Within the art and comic world, Charlie Hebdo is well respected for their integrity and sense of fairness in criticism. In the past, members of their staff have been attacked by Islamic militants over their cartoons and articles which have depicted various Muslim subjects, including but not limited to their prophet Muhammad. In a 2011 incident, their office building was even firebombed and totally destroyed.

Two of the three gunmen just moments before they murdered a wounded policeman outside the Charlie Hebdo offices. Taken from public security camera footage captured live during the assault.

Unfortunately, tragedy struck their organization again this morning. Twelve French citizens were left dead, of which ten were Charlie Hebdo staff members. Two police officers standing guard outside the building were also slaughtered in cold blood. Another eleven individuals were injured. Eye-witness reports state that the three gunmen whom facilitated the attack were shouting "Allahu Akbar" in Arabic, but also spoke French and said they were "avenging their prophet". As they stormed the offices and took control of the staff, eye-witnesses inside the building provided further gruesome details. Apparently, the gunmen had a specific hit-list of individuals they wanted to eliminate. The barbarians called them out by name one at a time to deliver their wrath. Five of the ten staffers assassinated were artists.

The attackers were swift in their actions. They were masked and carried Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles. As they left the scene of the crime, they exchanged further gunfire with the local police before hi-jacking a new vehicle and fleeing north from the city of Paris. As of this writing, the gunmen have not been apprehended. I will update this article as news develops.

Myself and all artists around the globe take this attack on personal expression and artistic creativity personally. Cartoons are one of the last great bastions of free speech. They convey love, compassion, wisdom, humor, sadness and triumph in a way that anyone can understand, no matter their native tongue. Artists and writers whom create this type of work do so for the love of the medium. The artists and other staff members at Charlie Hebdo did not deserve to die for their craft. I convey my deepest condolences to the families of the dead and injured.

One of Charlie Hebdo's most notorious covers, which depicts a generic staffer of the publication kissing a Muslim man.

We live in a world where individuals do insane acts in the name of their holy deity. Whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian or of any other religion, no one has the right to take the life of another human being because of their beliefs. Much less, to slay someone because of their art work is beyond preposterous... it's disgusting. This type of activity says a lot about the Muslim world. Though the majority of Muslims would not enact such outlandish behavior, their continued adherence to the Islamic cult of death is nearly as shameful.

All I know is this... If I were a member of a group or organization that held other members whom regularly carried out acts of violence, then I would leave said organization. To remain a member is to silently condone such activity, in my opinion.

Religion, no matter the specific faith, is at the heart of this attack and others like it. I won't dance around the facts of the matter. Outdated theology and superstition has repeatedly lead to the death of innocents. We see it over and over again. When will it stop? Most likely, only when humanity has cast aside such childish notions and evolved for the betterment of mankind.

My Favorite Christmas Carols: Ave Maria.

Well folks, we've finally made it to December. It's that time of year for egg nog and revelry; five golden rings and mall Santas.

That's right - the Christmas season is upon us!

Believe it or not, I'm actually a big fan of Christmas. Sure, I can be a grumpy Scrooge this time of year, but I can also be festive and friendly. That's just my nature! Hot one moment, cold the next. Billy Joel gets me.

Whether you celebrate the season in a religious or secular manner (or a little bit of both), one of the best aspects of Christmas is the music. Such beautiful melodies have been written for this season. This month, I want to highlight different songs that I truly enjoy.

The first song I'm going to feature is Ave Maria. Though the content of the song as it is modernly presented is deeply religious, I enjoy it more for the sheer sound and vocal performance. Unbeknownst to most, Ave Maria actually originates from Austrian composer Franz Schubert. He wrote the original as part of his Opus 52 in 1825, which recants Sir Walter Scott's epic poem The Lady of the Lake. It was later popularized by composer and pianist Franz Liszt (my personal favorite) in 1837 and 1838. Below is a wonderful rendition of Liszt's arrangement of Ave Maria by master pianist Valentina Lisitsa.

Schubert originally wrote Ave Maria in German under the title Ellens dritter Gesang, which translates to 'Ellen's Song'. The meaning was much different than what we hear today. Because the first line of the song was 'Ave Maria', that's what it came to be more commonly known as. Many years after Ave Maria was first published, the Roman Catholic Church adapted Ave Maria to the Latin prayer which coincidentally shares the same name. I'll compare the two texts for you below.

Ave Maria (Ellens dritter Gesang) - Original German Version

Ave Maria!
Jungfrau mild,
Erhöre einer Jungfrau Flehen,
Aus diesem Felsen starr und wild
Soll mein Gebet zu dir hin wehen,
Zu dir hin wehen.
Wir schlafen sicher bis zum Morgen,
Ob Menschen noch so grausam sind.
O Jungfrau, sieh der Jungfrau Sorgen,
O Mutter, hör ein bittend Kind!
Ave Maria!


Ave Maria
Unbefleckt!
Wenn wir auf diesen Fels hinsinken
Zum Schlaf, und uns dein Schutz bedeckt,
Wird weich der harte Fels uns dünken
Du lächelst, Rosendüfte wehen
In dieser dumpfen Felsenkluft.
O Mutter, höre Kindes Flehen,
O Jungfrau, eine Jungfrau ruft!
Ave Maria!


Ave Maria!
Reine Magd!
Der Erde und der Luft Dämonen,
Von deines Auges Huld verjagt,
Sie können hier nicht bei uns wohnen
Wir woll'n uns still dem Schicksal beugen,
Da uns dein heilger Trost anweht;
Der Jungfrau wolle hold dich neigen,
Dem Kind, das für den Vater fleht!
Ave Maria!

Ave Maria - Latin Prayer Version

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena,
Ave, Ave, Dominus,
Dominus tecum.
Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus,
Et benedictus fructus ventris (tui),
Ventris tui, Jesus.
Ave Maria!


Sancta Maria, Mater Dei,
Ora pro nobis peccatoribus,
Ora, ora pro nobis;
Ora, ora pro nobis peccatoribus,
Nunc et in hora mortis,
In hora mortis nostrae.
In hora, hora mortis nostrae,
In hora mortis nostrae.

Ave Maria!

As you can see, the Latin prayer version is much shorter with less lyrics. That's why so many of the words are drug out when this version is sung. The music was originally written for more words!

The lyrics aren't the only thing that differs between the two versions of Ave Maria. If you were to translate the original German, you'd discover a song about a desperate woman facing certain death. It's based on the tale of the Lady of the Lake -- Ellen Douglas. Along the shore of Loch Katrine in the Scottish Highlands, Ellen is calling out to the Virgin Mary for help. A rebellion army is climbing the mountain she's sought refuge with her outcast father. Surely, they are to perish in a forthcoming climactic battle. Yet, the Roman Catholic Latin prayer version removes this context entirely. In its place is an ode to the Virgin Mary in blissful worship.

No matter which version you prefer, Ave Maria is elegant, heart-wrenching and deeply passionate. I consider it one of my most favorite of all Christmas Carols. Hopefully, you now feel the same. Below are two fantastic versions of the song, both in the original German and adapted to the Latin prayer.

Maria Callas - Ellens dritter Gesang

Michael Bublé - Ave Maria

And yes... I like Michael Bublé. So sue me. ;-)