World's Got Religion

Welcome back to World’s Got Religion. If you’ve missed any of tonight’s show, let’s do a quick recap of all the acts trying to win a place in your hearts.

First, we introduce our judges – Simon Cowell, Sharon Osborne and Howard Stern: forthright, funny and fair, as always.

Let’s start with some of the auditions that didn’t go so well, step on up, Hillsborough Baptist Church.

Howard: Really? Have you actually listened to how you sound?

Sharon: I love every one. I think you all know that, but I hated you. With a passion!

Simon: Get off! Go, now. Try something else, other than religion.

Next up – Atheists.

Howard: Stop, stop, stop, thank you. What’s going on? Have they lost your tape or have you forgotten the words?

Atheist: This is the act.

Howard: What? Just sitting there, doing nothing.

Atheist: I don’t have to do nothing. You want me to do something? Because I can do whatever I want.

Howard: Is it building up to a big finish?

Atheist: No.

Howard: Then what’s the point?

Atheist: Yes, now you’re getting it.

Then we had the Amish. Howard and Sharon simply didn’t get it, but Simon, as always, cut to the heart of the problem.

Simon: “How are we to know? You refused to use the microphone. We could sort of hear you, but good luck to any one sitting up the back.”

Next came the Scientologists 

And from our judges.

Howard: “The equipment, the set up, it all looked fantastic – then Meh.”

Sharon: “I liked how it was all… shiny.”

Simon: “Look, guys, it’s pretty clear you’re hearts are in the right place, but faith isn’t science. You really need to go away and rethink the whole thing.”

The Rastafarians didn’t even wait for the judge’s vote. They made it half way through their act before forgetting their words. We think they said something about food and then wandered off stage. When we caught up with them to try and get them back out to finish their audition they asked, “What audition?”

And that left us with the groups who did get our audience on their feet, chanting, clapping, screaming Hallelujah.

First up Judaism; 

Our Judges said: 

Sharon: “Loved it, really, really good and I can tell you’ve put a long, long time into getting that right. Well done. If I had to be super critical – not sure about ‘no bacon’.

Howard: “You had me before you even walked on. This is for me. I honestly tried not be drawn in to what you were doing for a whole bunch of reasons, but in the end, what can I say, Mazel tov.”

Simon: “Yeaaaaah, good. But it’s almost the same act as some of the others we’ve seen. And those acts brought a lot more color and movement; the Pope with his red shoes and pointy hat for instance. It might just be a presentation issue. I don’t know. I guess a lot of people do like the older material. I’m just worried you may be splitting the vote. Still, good job, yo from me.”

And what is our show without some controversy between judges? It all started when Howard said some things that lit up the social media networks. Here’s what happened after the Buddhists finished their act:

Howard: “I know I’m going to get in trouble for this, but the elephant in the room is you; the big half naked guy in the middle. You have a weight problem, Sir.”

Simon: “Oh, come on. What does that matter?”

Howard: “You’d be happy to look at that tummy every day?”

Sharon: “I think it’s a cute tummy.”

Simon: “Looks aren’t what matters. This is about performance, besides everything can change.”

Howard: “And if he changes he’ll alienate the chubby chasers who already like him.”

Simon: “Any weight he loses may improve his performance, change doesn’t mean loss.”

Howard: “I just see a fat man in a caftan.

Simon: “Then I suggest you look a little deeper.”

Sharon: I do like the orange though. I’d keep that.

Fortunately for everyone things quickly settled down as the big acts just kept coming. We had the Muslims and there very charismatic central figure.

 And they found a friend in Sharon.

Sharon: “I loved it, spot on: peace, good will, help the poor. You were the absolute bomb!”

Simon: “Oh Sharon, come on! Think about what you’re saying! For God’s sake, don’t just blurt things out.”

Sharon: “Why? What did I say?”

And before the dust had settled on that little tiff, in came those amazing Hindus.

While the crowd loved the act and Simon and Sharon also seemed to be on board, it was Howard who proved a little harder to convince.

Howard: “I don’t know - it just seemed a little introspective to me, a little held. Maybe try not to internalize so much next time. I did like the positive attitude, the way you were absolutely certain you’d be coming back. That was good and I hope, for your sake, you’re right.”

And finally the Christians got their turn on stage and it was pretty clear from the very first, ‘Father, Son and Holy Ghost’, they were a crowd favorite. 

But isn’t it just like Simon to go against the crowd?

Simon: “You’re obviously influenced by a lot of different groups and that’s not a bad thing. The Jim Morrisey look for your lead is good, sexy; modern. I did feel the very slow three day section towards the end stretched the patience of the audience, but you had a big finish and that was aaallllmost worth the wait.”

So that’s where things currently stand. Will your chosen religion be in the rapturous final five? They will if you spend  enough money on them, so pick up that phone and dial!  

Gay Marriage – You Cannot Straddle The Rainbow.

When people struggle to construct a logical argument to stop something they're against they usually resort to citing imagined outcomes that are either absurd or terrifying - sometimes both.

For instance – “We cannot allow people to marry a partner of their choice or we will be allowing men to marry horses.”

Of course to allow this argument we must also acknowledge shooting a horse would be murder, owning a horse would be slavery and riding a horse would be just a little weird. We would also need to redefine what we consider to be inclusive of the human race. In fact, there is not much of our legal common law system we wouldn’t have to redefine to fear this outcome.

Or, we could send a grade three teacher across the floor of the government assembly to the elected represented who dared to argue gay marriage should be disallowed on the grounds that horses would be choosing bridesmaids and have her rap that idiot over the knuckles with her discipline stick.  

We are talking about the right of people to marry the person of their choice in a binding, moral, spiritual union. If you argue this means we would need to redefine what marriage is, then fine - redefine it. Our legal system has a legislative history and continued existence built on the revision of earlier laws so why suddenly set in stone those aspects that help the prejudicial deny change to those wanting and needing change?

But then there's religion. Christian...

Muslim...

Hindu and Buddhism.

The Dalai Lama's views aside..Traditional Buddhism has for centuries adopted the view of sexuality that is fast becoming the populist accepted view - allowing variation on sexual attraction to be dictated by individuals and not by the few for the masses, as has been the practice of many societies and religions to this point in our history.

Religious freedom is a basic human right and many around the world, within a variety of different religions still live incredibly pious lives and adhere to the teaching and interpretation of their faith and their faith’s leaders.

This cannot simply be dismissed and if it is, then the argument of gay marriage as a fundamental right can only be made at the expense of other people’s fundamental rights. Faith based beliefs have been so strongly held by the human race through out time they have shaped our history and all too often these beliefs have led to the death of individuals who try to enforce change or disrespect another's religion. 

Marriage, for many, is still the most seriously held religious pledge and blessing made to and given by God. It would be wrong for those who consider marriage as less sacred to force those who are deeply religious and consider marriage a central doctrine within their belief system to treat it the same way.

For both sides, this choice is a human rights issue.

It is a human right for every member of society to be allowed to take a partner of their choice, to create a family and make a commitment pledge that is morally and spiritually binding, in whatever manner those individuals choose.

But human rights go both ways and often, as, I believe, is the case with gay marriage, two groups, with differing human rights, find these rights in conflict with each other.

Is it justified to force a religious body, officials or congregations to accept a religious ceremony that the body, officials or congregation believe denigrates their religion and devalues their faith?

Freedom of faith, and therefore protection of that faith as those people see it, is also a basic human right.

Of course, this still leaves any argument against a state certified non religious form of gay marriage based on antiquated laws as looking ridiculous. Who is state condoned gay marriage hurting in that case? 

But there is still a case to be argued for those citing religion as their primary opposition to gay marriage. 

Personally I believe and hope that religious people and bodies who choose to oppose gay marriage, and, in so doing, deny equal rights to gays, will lessen in number and fade away as their position becomes increasingly untenable to the wider community. If this happens it will be interesting to see if they change their view in order to survive. 

But, regardless of this personal view or hope, I believe the bigger and current issue that needs to be brought front and centre is that those arguing against gay marriage, while claiming a tolerance of gay people, need to be 'outed' as being incredibly two faced and hypocritical.

You cannot be a little sanctimonious about this issue. If you claim a religiously based human rights charter as an argument to deny marriage to same sex couples you must also claim a personally held religious belief that condemns all same sex attraction as something outside your own personal and spiritual beliefs. Not to do so makes no sense and totally undermines your gay marriage argument.

If you argue against gay marriage on the basis of an ever changing man made legislative agenda that has been constantly changed and update throughout time to accommodate change in society, then you are clinging to it for only one possible reason - to hide your homophobia. 

You cannot sit on the fence and claim to love gays, but deny them marriage. Tony Abbott, the Australian opposition leader famously tried to do this by describing same sex couples entering into civil unions as having relationships that were no less loving and worthwhile than any other relationships, but then declared he didn’t believe they had the right to marry, where marriage would allow exactly the same rights and spiritual union to same sex couples as heterosexual couples.

Trying to argue a separation between an anti same sex marriage stance and a subtle or overt homophobia is illogical. To argue against gay marriage is to argue that in some way you see gay unions as less worthy or less valid a partnership option than that of a man and a woman. To do this you must view homosexuality as less worthy or less valid.  

If you are against gay marriage on religious grounds then you are against homosexuality on religious grounds. To date I have not heard anyone argue against gay marriage, and then embrace the gay community and not sound foolish. The only coherent argument is to site a conviction that your God, through your religion, has made it clear homosexuality is not acceptable.

I don’t agree with that argument, but I respect it. In fact I would argue against people or groups with these views from being forced to change their charters to accommodate gay marriage. Of course once the majority of people, including a majority within these religions start advocating for change alongside the gay community, what do we do? What's the equation that dictates when a human right should be granted to the many if it involves the loss of a human right for the few? How many are enough and how many are too few?

When no loss of life or injury is involved in the denial of a human right, and the granting of that right conflicts with others, it becomes difficult to decide how to give everyone what they demand. And this is certainly a complicated issue for worthy minds, but, it is also time for those who are against this change on religious grounds, or any other indefensible legal grounds, to be held to account. You cannot have it both ways and we should stop allowing our leaders of both church and state this luxury. 

If you are against a fundamental human right, in this case social equality, being extended to people for any reason, then you are against those people fundamentally for the same reasons.

You may only be mildly against them, you may convey and even publicly advocate social tolerance of them, perhaps to cynically remain 'politically correct', but to be against by any degree still means you're against and regard that group, on some level, as less worthy of the full rights of your society. 

You cannot claim acceptance of gay people and their partnerships and not of gay marriage. If you do the time has come for the rest of us to out you as a hypocrite and certainly label you as no friend of Dorothy's. Even the laws of optics make it clear that no-one can have a foot either side of a rainbow.  

Scott Norton Taylor - Inner City - Ebook for Kindle, Epub Sony, Palm or online!

Reviews: From Amazon

5.0 out of 5 stars Awesome read May 27, 2013

By Anna Brouillard

Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase

This book was so intriguing I hardly put it down. Wonderfully written it does not linger on any 

one event nor does it speed through scenes making it a poor read. The characters were well 

thought out and the inner turmoils they all face are far from dull.

5.0 out of 5 stars Spectacular April 5, 2013

By Jack

Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase

The book was simply amazing it had action romance and just enough drama to make me happy 

one of the best books I have ever read

From Barnes and Noble - Nook Books:

Posted December 1, 2012

 Great read.

A story filled with with love, hate, violence, peace and so much more. 538 pages of wondering what will happen 

next. A FULL story from start to finish. Thanks to the author for sharing a great work with the readers.

Posted July 8, 2012

 Couldn't put it down...

For this to have been a free book, it was wonderful. The author keeps you on the edge of your seat. I couldn't 

put this down. I think this would make a great movie!

Posted April 20, 2012

 Amazing

Perfectly written with great detail it was thought provoking and asked the fundemental question of would you 

stick up for what you believed was right even if you would be killed for doing so.

Posted April 5, 2012

 This book is AWESOME! it keeps you wanting to read the entire ti

This book is AWESOME! it keeps you wanting to read the entire time. It tells of 2 worlds, and both are 

extremely unique. One of the best books I've ever read!

READ IT YOURSELF - INNER CITY

I spoke to God - and ordered a Heineken.

I’m in Thailand – beautiful warm and friendly Thailand. A few days ago I flew from Bangkok to Roi-Et in Northern Thailand – part of Issan, one of Thailand’s poorest regions, populated by independent rice farmers working small plots of land.

I flew Happy Air. A small airline that delivered a flight exactly as their name promised. Nice to fly with a domestic airline that provides food and drink as standard service. 

But I forgot the only really important travel tip I know when touring Thailand – If a Thai person tells you something is, ‘Spicy, little bit,’ do not eat it! Fortunately my screams for water were easily heard over the small engines and the other ten passengers all had a good laugh.

The next day I drove to Yasathon where I went for a meal in a nice restaurant called Priew and ended up coming face to face with God.

My waiter God.

I'm not sure why Thai people take on nicknames when their own names are so wonderful – who couldn’t be impressed by a moniker such as – Surasak Tinsulanunda? The nicknames chosen are usually two to four letters long and never consider any meaning from another language. I’ve met many Poos, Banks, Kaks and Nods, but this was the first time I’d met God. And good for him for aiming high!

I listened to a live band, Chailai, who had some very catchy songs. Back at my hotel I walked into their own club and what seemed to be a live version of Idol. A few craggy, older musicians looked bored as they played drums and guitars without much commitment. Then a stream of singers came out and did rock star impersonations. With each new offering I was convinced it could not get any worse. I was wrong. It could and it did. But with Heineken at $2 dollars a bottle I got drunk and hoped a beer buzz would make them all sound better. Wrong again!

I drove back to Mudkahan and toyed with the idea of dropping in on Laos for lunch, but they asked a decent price for a visa, 1500 baht and I thought that, at $2 a Heineken, the money would be better spent back in Thailand.

The final leg of my Issan adventure was back to where I started in Roi-Et. I visited a temple with a famed water fall about twenty minutes outside the city. The monks were plentiful and sat at the top of the steps that led down to the falls. I inched down the many steps, first constructed and looking like scaffolding, and then out of carved stone in the hillside. When I got to the bottom I found a long pipe above a constructed altar that dripped water into a man made sink.

Assuming I’d not found the water falls I walked on, only to discover these were the falls the monks above assured me were well worth the visit.

Down by the bathroom drip falls, there was a lovely old lady sweeping the altar for dirt. There was no dirt anywhere and hardly an altar, just a tiled platform to give the drip catching sink some reverence, but she kept sweeping. I think she may have had some sort of religious breakdown, or perhaps she snapped on seeing the dripping falls after having climbed down so far. But her cleaning was very intense and she spat words at anyone that came near. Alone at the bottom of many steps, guarding a much touted, but non existent natural wonder, she swept an altar visited by few and standing guard over an ever diminishing trickle of life giving moisture. Her futile and unnecessary toil an interesting metaphor for religious devotion or perhaps modern religion itself?

I climbed the steps back to the top. They seemed to have doubled in number and steepness and in the very hot 35+ degrees heat, with clinging humidity, I was dripping sweat by the time I reached the summit. The monks, who had initially encouraged me to take the journey, now gleefully welcomed me back. They also revealed a very large ice chest that they opened. It was full of cold drinks and ice creams at inflated prices. 

Well played monks, well played.

From there I walked up the average wall of Thailand that seems to have been built, not to keep out the marauding Mongol horde, but to give visitors a better view of the countryside before heading up the hill to the temple..

The wall is about 200 metres long, styled on the Great one of China, and made of rusty coloured bricks and concrete that is a marvel of 80's engineering. Even the  fact they forgot to put in any drainage, so the tiers fill with water and make walking almost impossible, seemed a quaint throwback to the architecture of the 80's. But what can you expect from a wall that looks like a great one, but isn't?

At the end of the average wall is the entrance to the Whatmaha Jaide Monkhum temple. I decided to call it the Bob temple in the Thai nickname tradition. Bob the temple was impressive and I went through a beautiful golden gateway that lead to more gold of the main temple beyond..

 

I climbed the many sets of stairs to the highest part of the temple, expecting to see more monks pulling the old ice cream chest scam at the top of each flight, but they were all hard at prayer up top. I particularly liked the safe placed before the altar at the highest point within the temple.

Christianity these days underplays it’s need and greed for donations, but here the message is placed boldly up front, so anyone wanting to kneel and pray is well aware that greasing a hand makes the message more likely to get through to who it is intended.

If you're still skeptical of course - you can always travel to Yasathon and deliver your message in person.

$2 Heineken - it's a miracle delivered by the hand of God!.