Turkish group claims LEGO Jabba's Palace is racist, offensive to religion

Let's compare some fiction and fact...

- Jabba's Palace was first built by the B'omarr Monks, who continued to live within it and practice their religion long after after Jabba the Hutt took over and made it his headquarters.

- The Hagia Sophia was a Christian basilica until 1453 when Ottoman Turks forced their way inside, slaughtering thousands of innocent people whose blood poured into the streets of Constantinople. From that time on Christians were forbidden from worshiping within their own building.

Got that? Good. Because it only makes the claim by a group of Turkish Austrians that LEGO's new Jabba's Palace set from its Star Wars line is "racist" and an affront to religion all the more ridiculous.

LEGO version of Jabba's Palace (left) and Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (right)
One is a place that has known murder, slavery and intolerance toward others. The other is a children's toy.

From The Telegraph article...

Austria’s Turkish community said the model was based on Hagia Sophia mosque in Istanbul and that the accompanying figures depicted Asians and Orientals as people with “deceitful and criminal personalities.”

The Turkish Cultural Community of Austria released a statement calling for Lego to apologise for affronting religious and cultural feelings.

The anger was provoked by “Jabba’s Palace”, a model of the home of Jabba the Hutt from Lego’s Star Wars product range based on the blockbusting series of science fiction films.

Jabba is the large slug-like creature who holds Han Solo captive in the film Return of the Jedi, and his palace is the setting for several crucial scenes, including using Princess Leia as his slave.

Jabba’s domed home and accompanying watchtower bare, according to the statement, an unwanted resemblance to Istanbul’s great Hagia Sophia, and another mosque in Beirut

...

The Jabba case came to light after an Austrian Turk complained to the organisation after his sister had bought his son the box set.

Austria’s Turkish community also took issue with the figures that went with the palace, including Jabba.

“The terrorist Jabba the Hutt likes to smoke a hookah and have his victims killed,” said the statement posted on the organisation’s website.

“It is clear that the ugly figure of Jabba and the whole scene smacks of racial prejudice and vulgar insinuations against Asians and Orientals as people with deceitful and criminal personalities.”

The crimes associated with the figures, the statements adds, include terrorism, slavery, murder and human sacrifice.

Taking into account that many of the Lego figures carry weapons, the Turkish organisation also urged parents “not to buy toys of war or toys of discrimination” as the model goes against the “peaceful coexistence of different cultures in Europe”.

As an indication of the anger felt over Jabba’s Palace, the organisation said it was considering taking legal action against Lego for inciting racial hatred and insulting human dignity.

Hit the link for plenty more of this ludicrous story, including a statement LEGO released in response to what the Turks are insisting.

How about some more comparison? Like, how the Turks in Austria are claiming that "The crimes associated with the figures... include terrorism, slavery, murder and human sacrifice."

There are numerous accounts written by those who survived the conquest of Constantinople about how Sultan Mehmet II allowed his soldiers to plunder the city for three days: butchering anyone who got in their way, stealing from homes and separating families. Mehmet II took the city's most beautiful young women - and men - to be in his private harem (those who resisted were beheaded). Many boys were pressed into the service of the Janissary corps. Not long after the conquest, the Ottoman Turkish sultan sent several thousands of children to each of the major potentates of the Muslim world to be slaves.

So far as we know, the only criminal activities that Jabba the Hutt and his gang engaged in were spice-smuggling and gun-running.

Nor do I ever recall Jabba employing suicide bombers, declaring jihad against anyone or even declaring that Luke's announcing himself as a Jedi as being "blasphemy". Come to think of it, Jabba tolerated a lot of "coexistence of different cultures" at his court.

Yup, Jabba the Hutt and his palace are insulting to certain cultures and religions, no doubt about it...

Read More

Why the hell do we even have embassies in Egypt and Libya?

Civility is a chosen virtue. It cannot be imposed or expected from those who refuse to accept it and its responsibilities.

Time to get out of the Mid-East until "countries" like Egypt and Libya learn to behave. Pull EVERYTHING out, including all those billions of dollars of aid they get from us one way or another.

If they want to return to barbarism that bad enough, who are we to stop them?

Read More

Iraq: Well, THAT didn't take long...

I hate to say "I told you so" buuuuuuut...

For quite a long time now and most recently five days ago, I have argued that going to war in Iraq would have disastrous long-term consequences and chief among those is that without a "strongman" to hold that country together, Iraq will tear itself apart into sectarian strife. The classic model for my thesis is Yugoslavia: a "nation" that much like Iraq was cobbled together from leftover realms in the aftermath of World War I. And just as Marshal Tito kept the various factions like the Croats, the Bosnians, the Serbs etc. from killing each other, so did Saddam Hussein put a lid on the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds and everyone else from destroying Iraq from within.

That's NOT any justification for Saddam Hussein, mind you. The man was an evil bastard. It's just the peculiar dynamic of any artificial nation like Iraq that it has to have a powerful central figure wielding exorbitant military force to keep the peace among the various ethnic and religious factions. That central figure was Saddam but when the United States deposed him, we took responsibility for Iraq!

(Okay, not the American people per se, but our government certainly did... and for the moment I'll let it remain an exercise for the reader as to whether our government is beholden to We the People anymore. But I digress...)

So with the United States military not even 24 hours departed from Iraq, that country's Shiite-controlled government has put out an arrest warrant for Iraq's vice-president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who is a Sunni.

Expect this sort of thing to continue to happen.

Incidentally, it was former president George W. Bush who had the "genius" idea of putting the Shiites in charge of Iraq. Some will try to blame Barack Obama for that, but there's no basis for it. And I ain't an Obama supporter by any means either. I'm just an American citizen who expects better of his elected representatives. Including a greater than basic grasp of history and culture of the places we muck ourselves up in.

Read More

My thoughts about the situation in Egypt

It's late. Had a way long day. I'm tired. So I'll make this quick. Or as quick as I'm apt to be with this sort of thing...

In a way Egypt is demonstrating why I was always against the Iraq War that began in 2003. And it's also demonstrating why the American government is never going to feel safe about pulling out of that country.

Because once we do, Iraq is going to very quickly turn into what Egypt is becoming now.

The uprising in Egypt began in large part to long-festering mistrust of Hosni Mubarak (who has been ruling Egypt since I was knee high to a grasshopper). That's thirty-some years. Way too long for anyone to be in power. I don't blame the Egyptian people for wanting to peaceably put an end to his regime.

But increasingly I'm seeing the efforts of the "nice 'n peaceable" Egyptians getting co-opted by radicals like the Muslim Brotherhood.

And in short: what's now happening in Egypt is looking insanely like what went down Iran way in 1979.

I can understand why the average Iranian was honked-off at the Shah. There was plenty enough of that to fuel the urge to overthrow his government in Iran at the time. The thing is, the average Iranian didn't care to be ruled over by wackos like Ayatollah Khomeini. The politics of the revolutionaries was immaterial. They just happened to have enough momentum to be the ones to topple the ruling order.

Sorta like what happened in Vietnam. Anyone seriously believe that the Vietcong were Communists purely because of its ideology? Feh! Communism was just a means to an end for what Ho Chi Minh and his gang were promising: an end to a thousand years of fighting for Vietnamese freedom.

My gut feeling: Egypt is going to wind up as another Iran. Maybe not as quickly as Iran turned into, but yeah: basically a bunch of good people who will realize too late that they are being ruled by a small band of nutcases. If you want me to use the words "radical Islamic state" then I suppose I've reason to.

And if we pull out of Iraq now or anytime in the foreseeable future, the same thing is going to happen there: people wanting freedom only to be co-opted by the radicals. And then we're looking at a bunch of Mid-East gone Islamic theocracy with a lot of shootin' irons and worse.

Awright, that's my analysis. G'nite!

Read More

Three reasons why "the mosque" should be built

Personally, I find the "mosque at Ground Zero" - the Islamic worship center that is being planned for construction not far away from where the two towers of the World Trade Center once stood - to be as big a "non-issue" as there's been in recent memory. It, like too many other things, is a distraction from matters that are of more dire priority.

So I honestly haven't given the issue much thought until someone over the weekend - and a devout Christian, incidentally - remarked that he hadn't seen one rational argument as to why there shouldn't be a mosque built at that location.

After spending the past few days ruminating on it, I have to conclude... that my friend has observed accurately. And that there even might be more good reasons to allow the mosque to be constructed than raw emotion might have us believe.

My gray matter can tick off three of 'em quite readily...

1. It will be built on private property - As someone who believes that there is a fundamental right to do with property as one sees fit unless it interferes with the rights of others, I am obligated on principle to defend the right for those planning the project to build the so-called "mosque".

2. People have an absolute right to worship God as best as they understand Him - Regardless of whether or not I agree with how they worship God, I must respect the right of others to seek Him, in the good faith that their doing so is as sincere as I would appreciate their respecting my own seeking after Him to the best of my ability and understanding. Put simply: we each have the right to worship God in our own way... but that right ends where the right of others to enjoy the same begins.

3. It will demonstrate that Americans are SERIOUS about the freedom of religion - Some will no doubt claim that I've "gone liberal". I think it's more in line with what the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans (namely, Romans 12:20): that if one opposed to us is hungry or thirsty then provide for his needs, as this "will heap burning coals on his head". And if Islam is the intolerant ideology that some contend that it is, I can think of few things better to counter it than to prove without exception that we of the Judeo-Christian ethic dare to love all others... which includes those who might be lusting for our destruction.

So yeah. I don't see why the mosque shouldn't be built. As one who holds to the rights of the individual and as a follower of Christ, I can't see where others should be deprived of the liberties that I am also thankful to have.

'Course, if the mosque is built and it does wind up used for nefarious purpose, I also can't but believe that the mosque should be razed to the ground and the site desecrated with pig fat (along with the corpses of any adherents responsible for such acts of violence). Parse that as you will...

Read More

1 in 5 Americans believe Obama is a Muslim

Read the story here.

I don't know what faith President Barack Obama professes to belong to. And in all honesty... it's not really my business to be concerned with it anyway. He could be Christian. He could be Muslim. He could be Hindu. He could be a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care. As has been said before on this blog and I'll state it again: I believe that every person has the right to seek God as best he or she can understand Him, so long as it's understood that this right ends where the right of others to have the same begins. Barack Obama certainly enjoys that right as well.

I merely expect Obama to be President and uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, as he swore an oath to do. More than a year and a half into his term, Obama ain't shown yet that he's up to the job.

"It is better to be governed by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian," Martin Luther is said to have observed. Unfortunately for the United States we've suffered nothing but foolish people - irrespective of creed - for twenty years at least! And it doesn't look like our prospects for wise leadership are going to improve any time soon...

Read More

On salvation and pride

It makes as much sense to declare that all the members of another religion are damned to Hell as it does to assert that all the members of your own religion are destined for Heaven.

Read More

Radical Muslim declares SOUTH PARK un-bear-able, implies violence against show's creators

Many readers know that I have a very strongly held personal belief that each person has an absolute right to seek after and worship God as best he or she understands Him, or even to not believe in God at all. The one caveat is that a person's right to that ends where another's right to do likewise begins. I don't believe that what the South Park guys have done (or have ever done) violates that notion.

The same can not be said of many adherents of the "religion of peace pieces"...

So now it's Trey Parker and Matt Stone who have drawn the ire of a wacko Islamic website. What's the sacrilege this time? A depiction of the prophet Muhammad, shown above with South Park characters Stan and Kyle.

In case you can't see him, Muhammad is hiding inside the bear suit.

From the Fox News story...

A radical Islamic website is warning the creators of "South Park" that they could face violent retribution for depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit during an episode broadcast on Comedy Central last week.

RevolutionMuslim.com posted the warning following the 200th episode of Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "South Park," which included a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad disguised in a bear suit. The Web posting also included a graphic photo of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 after making a documentary on violence against Muslim women.

"We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show," the posting reads. "This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them."

Reaching by phone early Tuesday, Abu Talhah al Amrikee, the author of the post, said he wrote the entry to "raise awareness." He said the grisly photograph of van Gogh was meant to "explain the severity" of what Parker and Stone did by mocking Muhammad.

"It's not a threat, but it really is a likely outcome," al Amrikee said, referring to the possibility that Parker and Stone could be murdered for mocking Muhammad. "They're going to be basically on a list in the back of the minds of a large number of Muslims. It's just the reality."

Wait a sec: so Muhammad was not actually shown. We only saw a guy in a bear costume. But that the South Park kids pointed at him and called him "Muhammad" was enough to get Parker and Stone targeted for death?!

I have to wonder if the same thing would happen to me if I were to, say, post a photo of Cap'n Crunch and write "this is Muhammad". Would some Islamic yahoo send me a threatening e-mail if I were to say that Yoda was really Muhammad? How about if I use an image of a pile of steaming dog excrement: "there is one god and this steaming pile of dog excrement is Muhammad his prophet!"

Mind ya, I'm not poking fun at Islam itself. But I darn well am saying that this is an example of some of Islam's followers acting like a pack of bloodthirsty thugs.

What I said earlier about everyone has the right to worship God up until that right impinges on others' right to do the same? I sincerely believe that. And if it takes vigorous self-defense (read into that what you will) to deter followers of Islam or even of Christianity or any other religious adherent who refuses to respect the rights of others, then so be it.

And as for Abu Talhah al Amrikee, I think Mr. Frank Miller came up with the perfect retort against that sort of nuttiness in the pages of The Dark Knight Strikes Again...

Read More

Don't want Obamacare? Convert to Islam or become Amish

I'm thinkin' that everyone now has a perfectly valid and legal reason to tell President Barack Obama to take his crummy "health care reform" and shove it up his ass.

(Oh yeah, that's right: not even Obama and his cronies want Obamacare. They're exempt from it.)

But within the legislation - which the House just re-approved a short while ago - are provisions for conscientious objection to Obamacare because of religion. The legal language seems tailor-made for the Amish (who use the communal resources of their churches to provide for medical care) and for Muslims, for whom insurance is religious taboo.

Since I'm neither Muslim, or a member of any Christian denomination (I still prefer to call myself a follower of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ), I guess that means that I'm screwed, right? Well, who is anyone in this steaming pile of bullshit (that's the very first time that I've used THAT word in any piece of writing, dear readers!) that is our government to tell me or anybody that my or your religion is invalid or "wrong"?

I now declare myself the Reverend Christopher Knight of the Second Church of What's Happening Now. And Obamacare is against the tenets of my creed, so I must be exempt. And I will be exempt, dammit!

And if you too want to stand up to that cocky bastitch in the White House and that deranged *itch of a House Speaker, feel free to do likewise.

Read More

Hatred and stupidity are a terrible combination

The photo on the right was taken during a protest in New York City in late December 2008.

Not as unintentionally funny as Sesame Street's Bert colluding with Osama Bin Laden, but still a somewhat hilarious peek into a heart of darkness.

Read More

Taxpayer-funded segregation? Indianapolis airport to give Muslims their own sinks

Indianapolis International Airport is going to install floor sinks by this fall - at the cost of $750 each - for Muslims to wash their feet before praying.

There is certainly a question here about the constitutionality of such a thing. I mean, these are public funds that are being used to support an establishment of religion: a notion that some people in this country have spent their entire lives toward stamping out, sometimes with dedication bordering on paranoia.

So yeah that's a concern. But what I want to know is: What's going to happen if a Christian or a Jew uses these same sinks, too?

I suppose it's possible that someone other than a Muslim could receive an injury to the foot that requires immediate flushing. Would an "infidel" be "desecrating" the Muslims' floor sink by using it? Are we going to see airport security personnel - i.e. taxpayer-funded "religious police" much like those of Saudi Arabia - patrolling around the floor sinks, making sure that nobody apart from the Islamic creed is using them?

Isn't this the very definition of "segregation"?

I grew up listening to stories about how black people were once not allowed to use the same facilities as whites... such as water fountains. In some places it was even punishable by law for a black to drink from the same fountain that had been designated for whites. So how is installing a floor sink that purportedly is only meant to be used by Muslims different from installing a water fountain that is only supposed to be used by whites?

Jim Crow was supposed to be dead and buried. But this move to accommodate Muslims at Indianapolis International Airport by giving them bathroom fixtures verboten to others threatens to not only dig Jim Crow back up, but to also dust him off and put him to work.

I don't care that this isn't a "white and black" thing. It's still a return to segregation, if not in active practice yet. And if violence ever occurs because someone other than a Muslim uses the floor sinks, there will be demands for even more concessions in the name of being "tolerant toward religion".

On a related note, what would happen if someone dumped strips of uncooked bacon into these floor sinks. Would they become so spiritually unclean that they would have to be ripped-out and replaced with new ones?

Just wonderin'...

Read More

FLAMETHROWER: TV Christians who don't "get" it ... yet

Yesterday I read a story on WorldNetDaily about a new TV show called Flamethrower, on the Faith TV network. The show describes itself as "The View if it was produced by Ann Coulter. Four panelists, all young men and women, all four believe in Judeo-Christian values, all four want political change and none of them are afraid to say what they think."

For this week's show, they had scheduled to broadcast a segment where the show's creator, Molotov Mitchell (already I've got a baaaaad feeling about the nature of this series), devours a cookie emblazoned with the frosted visage of Muhammad, the founder of Islam. The whole thing is apparently meant to be a stunt intended to offend Muslims, particularly since according to Islamic tradition images of Muhammad are forbidden... which has always struck me as funny 'cuz how do we know what Muhammad looked like, anyway?

Here's a pic of "Molotov" Mitchell committing sacrilege while satiating his sweet tooth...

However, in the wake of the initial report about Flamethrower's show this week, Faith TV has now pulled the plug on the segment. "We're not going to air it," said the president of the network. "We feel this program just goes beyond the bounds of good taste."

I agree. And I say that as a follower of Christ myself.

"Molotov" Mitchell told WorldNetDaily that "Islam is not even a religion... It's an ideology of 'might makes right' disguised as a religion." I don't disagree with Mitchell on that point at all. And without elucidating further (because it would take way too long for this kind of post), I'll even say that there hasn't been a worse cancer upon human history than Islam. It is collective madness at its most destructive.

But how is Christianity any different from Islam, when its own adherents stoop this low? Can somebody please tell me how, precisely, the Flamethrower team is furthering Christ's love toward others by doing this kind of thing?

Does the Flamethrower staff believe that Muslims are too far beyond the love of Christ that they cannot find redemption?

Let me be clear on this: Islam is a "religion" that cannot be reasoned with. When coupled with unbridled power, it has invariably become the most bloodthirsty cult in human history. There will never be "peace in the Middle East" between those of the Judeo-Christian persuasion and the Islamic mindset. Heck, there can't even be peace among Muslims themselves per their religious traditions: witness the civil war that would break out in Iraq if the United States were to pull out. Which is probably the biggest reason we should have never involved ourselves in that fraud of a country anyway, but I digress...

"Join us or die!" is the Islamic cry. But don't Christians do much the same when they demand that we "join us or burn in Hell"?

Do we try to convince others of Christ because we sincerely love them and are legitimately concerned for their eternal destiny... or do we try to win others to Christ because of our own ego? Because if we can "get more people" to join with us that this somehow validates our creed, when we should be content and motivated by nothing more than the grace of Christ that has saved us.

I don't think the Flamethrower crew understands what it means to be serving the cause of Christ, at least not when they attempt cheap stunts like this. But I don't think they are past understanding. I believe they can learn and grow from this, and come to realize that to follow Christ and present Him to others means that our actions are graced with humility, rather than confronting those apart from Christ with blunt-force trauma.

Why should the rest of the world be convinced of Christ, then? When the Flamethrower staff does stuff like this, it only exhibits before everyone else that they don't have anything different to show for their faith than what the rest of the world presents. We as Christians are supposed to be in this world but not of this world... and when we do things like this, we only demonstrate that we haven't died to this world's ways in the least bit. Christ just becomes another idol for conquest... exactly like Muhammad.

I wouldn't be writing this if I didn't know what it's like to be a Christian such as Mitchell and his compatriots. Years ago, when I was new to the faith (and a bit younger than the Flamethrower panelists) I too was "full of spice and vinegar" as they say... and I was eager to put it to use for my new faith. To show that I was a good and sincere Christian.

Among other things I told former United States Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, to her face, that she was a "murderer" for her support of abortion. Heh-heh... I'd love to see the Flamethrower crew top that one!

But all the same: it was a wrong thing to have done, and a few years later I apologized for it in an op-ed piece in my college newspaper. By that point I had come to realize: this kind of confrontation isn't what being a follower of Christ is about in any way whatsoever. Not when it comes to trying to persuade others about the truth of Christ within us, anyway.

There's not much else that I know to say about the matter other than this: Flamethrower's staff no doubt feels a sense of purpose and power with what they are doing. I absolutely know, because I've had that kind of high myself. And it's something that I have sincerely come to regret. I would save them the shame and guilt that might not come today, but will certainly come years from now, when they realize that they had talent and opportunity to demonstrate Christ in a loving way... and instead they turned Christ into a weapon of hurt and spite.

Maybe this is how you fight a "cultural" war. Maybe this is the temporal realm's way of fighting to "change the world". But I don't care much for changing the world anymore. I'd rather change people's hearts. And so should the staff of Flamethrower.

Read More

Muslim women becoming "virgins" again via surgery

Here's an interesting story via Fox News Channel...

Muslim Brides Undergoing Painful Vaginal Surgery to 'Re-virginize' for Wedding Nights

Monday, December 17, 2007

On her wedding night, Aisha Salim will hand her blooded sheets to her in-laws as proof of her virginity, according to a story in The Daily Telegraph of Australia.

But there’s one problem. Being a modern English university graduate, she is far from the traditional untouched Muslim bride.

Like most woman her age, Salim has smoked, drank, had sex and even lived with one of her past boyfriends.

However, if the devout Muslim family of her soon-to-be husband – or even her own family – knew this, she could be murdered.

Aisha has opted to have her virginity surgically restored in a delicate but painful surgery called hymenoplasties -- where the hymen is re-created from the already torn tissue, or a new membrane is inserted.

"If my husband cannot prove to his family that I am a virgin, I would be hounded, ostracised and sent home in disgrace,” Salim told England’s Daily Mail.

“My father, who is a devout Muslim, would regard it as the ultimate shame. The entire family could be cast out from the friends and society they hold dear, and I honestly believe that one of my fanatically religious cousins or uncles might kill me in revenge, to purge them of my sins. Incredible as it may seem, honour killings are still accepted within our religion.

"Ever since my family arranged this marriage for me, I've been terrified that, on my wedding night, my secret would come out. It has only been since my surgery last week that I've actually been able to sleep properly. Now, I can look forward to my marriage."

There's more of the story at the link above, including how this "surgically-reconstructed virginity" is gaining in popularity among Muslim women.

So much that could be said about this...

Fer starters, there is something very, very wrong with the expectation that a new bride "hand her blooded sheets to her in-laws as proof of her virginity" on her wedding night. Just plain ewwwww, man.

But what if the woman in question is indeed a virgin but already has a torn hymen? There are several cases of women who have no more hymen because they were lost during activities like gymnastics and horseback riding. Some women have even been found to have been born with little or no hymen at all, meaning that there isn't much to reconstruct from.

But most of all, I have to wonder how much sincere love there is for this woman from her family: from her own as well as the one she's marrying into. Love is supposed to be many things, and forgiving is among the most important. Even forgiving things like "loss of virtue".

That a religion would deem it acceptable to kill a person like Aisha (I'm pretty sure that's not her real name) cries volumes about what this supposed "faith" holds sacred. The whole point of most religion at all - and I'm not gonna try to use this to get into a "my faith is better than your faith" thing, 'cuz that's not the point of it - is to reconcile one's soul with something that's higher than man, because we have to realize that whatever perfection there is, we do fall short of it. Way short. And there's nothing on Earth that we can do on our own to make ourselves justified to that perfection.

A "faith" that does not acknowledge this and appreciates the need for grace, is not a real faith at all.

It is also sad that Aisha does not seem able to break away from this religion. She only adheres to it because she's expected to. She believes she has no choice.

But there is always a choice and each of us can make it, if we want to.

Read More

When Christians get it all wrong ...

Two stories - both from here in North Carolina - that caught my attention this morning, that illustrate the frustration that I have so often with some who profess to share my faith in Christ...

The first has to do with Good News Independent Baptist Church in Raleigh: its pastor has placed this sign out in front of the church. I could say something about the horrible grammar and spelling ("Christain"?) but that's not the point. What is troubling is that Rev. Gary Murrell is being a very poor witness for Christ in doing this. Does he seriously believe that this sign is going to convince any Muslim to give up his or her religion and embrace Christianity? Because he's gravely mistaken if he does. We are supposed to be convincing people of Christ with our love toward them, and not militant hostility. When Murrell does this, he's really not showing that he's that much different from the Muslims who do kill other people. The hatred and loathing is the same, it's just a difference of extremes to which each chooses to express that hatred.

The other story involves the opening prayer at Forsyth County Board of Commissioners meetings. The ACLU is suing the board for what it calls "sectarian prayer" during its meetings. The board is supposed to be voting on how to handle the situation later tonight.

Here's the thing: I don't believe that the ACLU should be filing these ridiculous lawsuits against local municipalities for how they choose to carry on their public meetings. This is something that's left up to the local community. So I definitely believe that the ACLU should butt-out. At the same time, too many of the people who are most defending this kind of prayer are doing so for the completely wrong reason. They aren't "defending" or "standing up" for prayer for prayer's sake. They are doing this to turn prayer into a public show of force and power... which is something that Jesus expressly taught against. In fact, Jesus said that people who do this kind of public prayer were "hypocrites". Prayer is supposed to be a personal thing between the individual and God, not a public rallying cry against "those evil liberals" or some-such. When it becomes that, then prayer is worthless... and like the story of the church sign above, it poisons our witness for Christ.

The common point in both of these stories is the notion that Christianity should be a "religion" in competition with all the other religions of the world. That is wrong, because that gives Christianity the purpose of accumulating temporal power instead of furthering the kingdom of God for no other reason than it's own sake. Christianity shouldn't even be considered a "religion" at all, anyway. It's about relationship with God, not ritual for God.

We do neither God or ourselves any favors when we use the name of Christ to achieve stature in the eyes of the world.

Maybe if the Christians of this country would realize the dire need for humbleness, and stop trying to dominate the world, then perhaps we would get out of the way and allow God to fix some of the things that we complain about most. But hey, I'm just a guy with a blog: what do I know?

Read More

Ham sandwiches are now a hate crime

Be careful when putting your Quizno's sub on a table: it might be investigated as a hate crime. Here's the story from Boston.com:

Police investigate ham incident at school

April 19, 2007

LEWISTON, Maine --Police are investigating as a possible hate crime an incident in which a ham steak was placed in a bag on a lunch table where a group of Somali students were sitting.

Such an incident would be offensive to Somalis, who are Muslims and consider pork unclean.

A Lewiston Middle School student was suspended after the incident, which happened April 11.

Superintendent Leon Levesque said the incident is being treated seriously and police are investigating. The center for the Prevention of Hate Violence is working with the school to devise a response plan.

The incident is the second of its kind in Lewiston in recent months. Last summer, a man rolled a pig's head into a mosque in Lewiston, which has a large Somali population. A court later ordered the man to stay away from the mosque.

This past week I've gotten the sense that this country has completely come unhinged from the locomotive. When the location of a ham sandwich is found to be "offensive" by some people and turned into an issue for law enforcement, you know we've gone over the edge.

I'm thinking of starting my own religion. It's called Knightiology. And one of the tenets of Knightiology is that mayonnaise is an affront to my faith. If anyone brings a sandwich with mayonnaise near me, I'm going to scream about how insensitive I'm being treated and have the police investigate it as a hate crime.

Now, wouldn't that be the stupidest thing, if I really did that?

Isn't it the stupidest thing that we have to be careful with our ham sandwiches now for fear of "offending" someone?

I wonder what would happen if I had some pork rinds shipped to the local mosque...

Read More