THE HOT JOINTS » Religion

New Mohammed Cartoon Sparks Outrage In The Muslim World

Chris Jones — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:06:38 +0000

Muslims are a lot like trained dogs. Instead of blowing a whistle you just draw a cartoon and they fly into a psychotic homicidal rage.

A crude drawing of the nutty Prophet Mohammed as a pig was posted on Facebook and reprinted in a Norwegian newspaper today. Right on cue outraged Muslims took to the streets on Oslo in protest — more than 2,000 of them. On Facebook the image attracted thousands of comments from angry Muslims including the usual fatwas and calls for beheadings, etc.

I appreciate that Muslims don’t like cartoons that offend their religion, but their religion offends me. Fortunately, I live in America and I can post anything I want, say anything I want, and draw anything I want — including Mohammed.

-Chris Jones

It’s Muslims Who Should Be Scrutinized At Airports

Chris Jones — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:47:07 +0000

At some point America is going to have to put aside political correctness and get real when it comes to the War on Terror.

Singling out passengers at random for secondary screening at airports is a foolish and politically correct security procedure. It doesn’t actually make us safer it just makes it look like it’s making us safer.

Let’s stop pretending the little old lady or the little boy in the stroller could potentially be a threat. Let’s instead focus on the people who’ve sworn to kill us — Muslims.

Yes, it’s discriminatory. Yes, it’s unfair. Yes, I realize not all Muslims are terrorists. But, I also realize that pretty much every terrorist is a Muslim (at least in recent memory).

You cannot screen only Arabs or Persians, because radical Africans also want to kill us. However, the one thing all of these people have in common is Islam.

If Catholics were rampaging around the world knocking down buildings and blowing themselves and airliners up, I would advocate for the screening of Catholics.

If Buddhist Monks began a terror wave around the world, I would advocate screening for Buddhist Monks.

It isn’t fair and it isn’t pretty, but it’s very necessary. “Profiling” is another word for keeping us safe.

When you board an aircraft, it’s fanatical Muslims you’re worried about. Not the Christian Nigerians or the Japanese Catholics. You don’t worry if the two Mormons sitting over the plane’s fuel tanks are plotting something nefarious.

We have to stop worrying about people’s feelings and start worrying about the people who want to kill us, and those people are Muslims.

Yes, you’re probably a law abiding Muslim. Sadly, there are some who use your religion to commit mass murder around the world, particularly using aircraft. So, if you’ll step right over here we can get this secondary screening over with and you can be on your way.

-Chris Jones

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Continues To Decline

Chris Jones — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:15:17 +0000

Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit has some rather inconvenient facts for the mainstream media. “Hate crimes” against Muslims have been declining steadily since 9/11.

Religious Ornaments Banned On Capital Christmas Tree

Chris Jones — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:03:35 +0000

This from The Fox Nation:

Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) called on Arizona state and federal officials on Monday to stop enforcing a requirement prohibiting the state’s schoolchildren from expressing religious viewpoints through Christmas themes while decorating ornaments for the 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree.Arizona was chosen this year to present 4,000 handcrafted ornaments made by elementary, middle-school, and high-school students to decorate Washington, D.C.’s annual Christmas tree.Guidelines for the ornaments include specifications for their size, weight, composition, and the directive that "Ornaments cannot reflect a religious or political theme… Instead share your interpretation of our theme ‘Arizona’s Gift, from the Grand Canyon State.’"

Decades ago no one would have predicted that our society would allow political correctness to do this much damage. It’s absurd to have a “Christmas” tree without being able to acknowledge “Christ”. We are a Judeo-Christian country and have every right to acknowledge Christmas as the important Christian holiday that it is.

Anyone who finds expressions of Christian faith on Christmas to be offensive — should get the hell out of my country.

Christ the Radical

Marcus Gadson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 15:53:35 +0000

Jesus Christ would not have many friends in contemporary society. That is the conclusion I reached reading through the gospels.

This might seem hard to believe. America is a religious place, at least compared to other western democracies. A Pew study last year found that ninety-two percent believe in God, and sixty-three percent say they believe in sacred scripture as the word of God.

Scripture is often invoked in our politics too. Opponents of gay marriage love to quote Leviticus—“you shall not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”—to justify their position. For their part, religious liberals like Christ’s declaration that “whatever you do to the least of these you have done unto me.”

But in their zeal to invoke Jesus, liberals and conservatives alike have neglected much of what he taught during his life. For example, Christ didn’t have great things to say about the materialism that is so rampant today. When a rich man asked what he had to do to become perfect, Jesus replied that he needed to sell all of his possessions and follow him; the rich man wept for he had many possessions.

Christ then says that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go to heaven. Some economic conservatives might be inclined to accuse anyone else who said this of stirring up class warfare. Many Americans would likely leave a church where the pastor told them that their constant pursuit of wealth made it harder for them to gain entry into heaven.

On sexual morality, Jesus would be far out of the mainstream today. He said “whosoever looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” All the young men who look at porn would mock someone who told them that their movie collections made them adulterers.

Jesus would appear just as out of place in discussions on divorce. He said “whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her.” Today, around half of all marriages end in divorce. It’s probably fair to say that these people don’t consider themselves adulterers. They would resent anyone who told them they were. To be sure, there is debate about whether there are some just causes for a divorce. However, it is hard to believe that Jesus would think that half of all marriages have such a just cause.

It drives me crazy to see the Bible selectively invoked like it is. Many of the people who use religion to make their judgments about gay people have said not a word against people who watch porn every night on their computers. They don’t spend nearly as much time complaining about how couples who divorce are undermining the institution of marriage. We aren’t supposed to pick passages we like to follow, and ignore passages that challenge our behavior.

Hypocrites ready to use the Bible to condemn others would benefit from another one of Christ’s ideas: let he who is without sin cast the first stone. When subjecting our behavior to Christ’s rigorous standards, it becomes clear that there aren’t a lot of people qualified to be throwing stones around these days.

The Jesus of the Bible clearly defies political classification. He was neither liberal nor conservative. But he was radical. Probably too radical for most of us.

-Marcus Gadson

Check out my blog

The End of the Religious Right?

Chris Jones — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:40:27 +0000

Mark Sanford and John Ensign are just the latest in a long line of conservatives espousing family values who’ve been caught having affairs. The amount of apparent hypocrisy in the Republican Party has caused many to ask if evangelicals will stop their one-sided support of the Republican Party in disgust.

Conservative evangelicals have gotten precious little for their support of Republicans in the past thirty years. Abortion remains legal. School Prayer is not allowed. Intelligent Design is not taught in public schools; evolution is. The only scraps they’ve been handed were ephemeral bans on embryonic stem-cell research and gay marriage. Still, on their biggest issues, Republicans have failed to deliver.

This is not true of the other factions in the Republican base. National security hawks and neo-conservatives got a military buildup against the Soviet Union, and an invasion of Iraq. Fiscal conservatives got large supply side tax cuts from Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Case in point: in 2005, although opposition to gay marriage had helped reelect George Bush, he spent his political capital trying to reform social security, not amending the constitution to ban gay marriage.

This is truly sad because evangelicals have paid a steep price in return for nothing. They have identified fervent Christianity with one political party in the eyes of many Americans. The result has been to turn off people who are politically moderate or liberal who might otherwise be open to religion.

Besides being counterproductive, the idea that people of faith should all support one party is just wrong. One Christian can legitimately look at scripture and church teachings and feel moved to support a party which works hard to eradicate poverty and help the least among us. A Christian could be dovish on war—“blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

And of course, there is no doubt that another Christian can conclude that abortion contravenes God’s will, and is a moral evil to be stamped out, and want to support a pro-life party. I understand too, how a person of faith could read Joshua’s declaration that “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart,” and believe that abortion is not just one issue among many. Concern over the one million abortions a year can never be dismissed as trivial.

It is largely forgotten that there is a long, proud progressive tradition in American religion. Martin Luther King and many of the participants in the civil rights movement were inspired and sustained by their strong faith. They saw their faith as providing a mandate to fight for justice and improve the human condition. Conservatives have never had a monopoly on faith and values.

I do not call for the formation of a new religious left to counter the influence of the religious right. Tying religion to worldly politics surely cheapens religion. There is no way to know whether Jesus would have been a Republican or a Democrat. I don’t know whether he would support a public option for universal healthcare, or a cap and trade scheme. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible would likely have harsh words for both parties and Americans of all political persuasions.

So, when applying faith to politics, we could do with a little humility. Said Abraham Lincoln: “my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.” Members of the Religious Right and would-be members of the Religious Left should keep that sentiment in mind before they dare invoke God in support of their political philosophy.

-Marcus Gadson

Read Marcus’s blog at http://thegadsonreview.blogspot.com/

God, And The Death Of Atheism…

Chris Jones — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:03:18 +0000

The ice may be starting to break up. The sun peeks through the clouds. Here and there and once in awhile. But, for the most part, the partisan fogs remain..

This night is never darker than during political “honeymoons”; when, layered onto normal “exceptionalism”, we Americans indulge ourselves in the deliberate “bubble” afforded to “new” administrations. This simply exacerbates our intellectual problems, further prostituting scholarship, journalism and honest criticism.

Until the rush of gush over Obama recedes, it is highly unlikely that there will be any market for independent thinking We must content ourselves now with some subject not corrupted by partisanship; with something less scintillating than the blow by blow descriptions of inanity which currently suffice for dialogue, and seize upon some low key and innocuous concepts among which we may abide while awaiting the resumption of serious discourse.

How about God?

Maybe we can clear out some of the underbrush surrounding that subject, some of the detras du stupidity, and be prepared, like good scouts, to effect real change when, and if, a new millennium actually dawns. First, let’s get rid of those colossal bores, those monuments to the limitations of intelligence, the Mensa masturbators: The atheists.

Lost in a mass of mental machinations, this well meaning, but galactically stunted, group bars the way to understanding by throwing up a polarizing distraction. This chimerical device asks us to decide whether or not God exists, (As if there was any question), sucking us into a debate having no possibility of leading anywhere.

Claiming that God cannot be proven by secular reason or scientific method, the argument then proceeds to ignore all scientific evidence as well as common sense.

Remember, neither history nor anthropology are theological pawns. No excavation, academic or archaeological, will uncover evidence of substantial human habitation without also discovering something everyone agrees can be called religion. This evidence extends into pre-history, and continues forward with no breaks until the present day. In short, religion and human history are inseparable.

Second, and much more succinct, is this: Human Beings are the only species in the universe to feel a spirit world beyond nature.

In short, human spirituality is as inseparable from the human condition as romance, art, emotion, or idea.

What may have begun as an attempt to lead lightning, regulate rainfall, bring back buffalo, or any other manipulation of the fickle fingers of fortune, has been filtered through the ages by all the other qualities that distinguish our species. Some of these aren’t very nice.

Among these are our equally essential need to control, brand, centralize, compete, and expand. We are attracted, as to shiny objects and fireworks, to rules and dictum; to what is written in stone. We love to organize. Add to this our equally unique mastery of technology, and the present condition of human spirituality is readily understood. In the same way that chain stores have pushed the independent to oblivion, our natural tendencies have created a narrowed assortment of official religious conduits to choose from. Reduced to five or so brands, “major” religions dominate our God ideas the same way the seven sisters dominated oil production, in the same way that major brands seek to dominate any market. When added to this already potentially violent aspect of our natures, sacredness and piety simple amplify the deadly consequences of competition.

This is what “atheists” really are objecting to; Not God. Because the evidence of our essential and universal spiritual qualities is so simple and obvious to all, its sublimity does not satisfy the desire to over-intellectualize. Where some might build castles, throw the perfect pass, or polish twenty inch chrome wheels, this sort of vanity demonstrates its prowess through the fancy, if ultimately self-serving, process of over-complication. Confident that we are dazzled by such prodigious and athletic mental gymnastics, they dwell comfortably within the notion that nobody will notice that their arguments rest entirely on ignoring the two fundamental truths listed above; truths which even the most average second-grader can understand.

Thus blinded, they then proceed to make their impossible argument. Not realizing that the idea of God represents the evolution of authentic human investigation, no less than art, psychology or science, they reject the universal truths underpinning this search because they have objections to particular contemporary explanations. This is like saying that because we cannot explain its origin, the universe does not exist.

Our current explanation for our spirituality, the modern story, is what we call God. This is not the first, nor will it be the last, idea we come up with. Science proves, and history has recorded, that God, that mono-theism, was not our first answer. In the “west”, which includes all three religions of Abraham, we all supposedly worship the same God; the God of Moses, invented by the children of Israel a few thousand years ago. But for more thousands of years, there were other ideas.

In the great cradles of civilization; in Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt, Greece and in Rome they were religious too: Yet they worshiped different spirits. When we view the idea of our God ontologically, that is, which came first- humanity or God, it is clear that humanity preceded God. God, as an idea, is a human invention. God is the idea which explains our spiritual relationship to life.

For atheism to assert that God does not exist, that God is not real; it relies, in the name of reason, on the proposition that ideas are not real.

Is evolution real? How about freedom? Beauty?

Oh, they say, truthful ideas can be proven by a scientific method, whereas theology is unsubstantiated. Science can only prove any idea through abstraction. Two plus two is a scientific certainty, but only an abstract representation. “Two”, like God, is a human invention.

There is much need for criticism of those who seek to control, brand, market and centralize our ideas about our nature. In fact, there is no end to the details they’ve got wrong. Foremost, is the idea that we already know it all; for it is those that make the religiously narrow argument that our idea of God is complete who are in fact arguing that the idea of God is dead, while it is those that doubt the perfection of any human idea who are actually arguing that the inquiry into the idea of God must be kept alive: To perfect is to preserve.

Much confusion arises from the silly notion that God created the idea of God.

We mistake the result of our inquiry with its need. Even while we must accept God as we accept any other idea, when we reject some particular aspect of this idea, or even the entire story, we do not disprove that human beings are essentially spiritual. Even if some idea of God is dead, as are most such ideas, we have said nothing about the underlying condition which prompted such ideas to begin with- human life.

To argue that God does not exist is to argue that humanity does not exist. Our spiritual selves are as real as all our other qualities. The ideas produced through spiritual inquiry are as real as any other idea. Ideas are real.

Finally, for those that say that religion is irrational- I say “so what”? What on earth ever possessed people to expect rational behavior from human beings? There are no rational human beings. Rationality is an abstract idea- JUST LIKE GOD.

The best of the religious, the humble, say God is love. Does love exist? Is love rational?

So, don’t tell me love is dead. What’s dead, is the useless idea of atheism.

R.I.P.

-Richard Hirshhorn

Video: O’Reilly And Megyn Kelly Scream At Each Other

Chris Jones — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:11:35 +0000

I’m a big fan of O’Reilly and always have been. But the one thing that irritates me is when he tells an expert on something that they’re wrong — when he doesn’t no what he’s talking about. Megyn Kelly is an attorney and an excellent one at that. So when Megyn tells O’Reilly what the law is and he says you’re wrong, it makes him look foolish.

Link:

(hat tip Hot Air)

Video: Pastor Ted Haggard Blames Childhood Sexual Abuse For His Scandal

Chris Jones — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:18:29 +0000

I certainly don’t wish the man ill, but I just don’t buy it. A person doesn’t just engage in gay sex out of the blue and then go back to normal again with some help. I believe Ted Haggard is gay and living in denial. Moreover, I think his wife is also living in denial about his sexuality. You don’t just suddenly go on a weekend bender and have sex with a male prostitute if you’re straight.

Gov. Palin Believes In God — Say It Ain’t So

Chris Jones — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:17:23 +0000

Gov. Sarah Palin has done several television interviews the last few days. One was with Matt Lauer and the other with Greta Van Susteren. Greta’s interview with Palin was probably one of the best interviews of 2008. It was a fascinating in home interview in which the governor cooked Moose chili and Caribou hot dogs for Greta and the crew. The interview was in two parts with each lasting nearly an hour and aired Monday and Tuesday night.

Out of everything Gov. Palin said on those two nights, the only part the media is buzzing about was when she spoke about God and her faith. One would think we were living in a secular progressive country led by an Athiest president for the last eight years given the media’s reaction to her comments.

Chris Matthews called Palin’s references to her faith “dangerous” and Maureen Dowd couldn’t resist penning a snotty little op-ed referencing the comments as well. It goes without saying that Dowd being the liberal elitist b*tch that she is, just can’t help herself. The idea that a woman could actually be unpretentious and authentic is simply inconceivable. Any woman who doesn’t abort her babies, doesn’t live in NYC, and doesn’t believe Al Gore is quite simply — a dumbass.

‘Chutzpah’ is the word that comes to mind when I hear Chris Matthews call Gov. Palin’s religious views “dangerous.” This from a guy who said on air that Barack Obama’s speeches give him a thrill up his leg. Or when he said just a couple of days ago that his job is to make Obama’s presidency a success. Now that is dangerous.

In case you missed the interview with Gov. Palin, here’s the hideous thing she said about her faith:

We are gonna have a 2012. I don’t know who’s gonna be a part of it. You
know I, I, faith is a very big part of my life and putting, putting my
life in my creator’s hands. This is what I always do in life. Okay God
if there is an open door for me somewhere – this is what I always pray
– I’m like don’t let me miss the open door. And if there is an open
door in ‘12 or four years later and if it’s something that’s gonna be
good for my family, for my state, for my nation, an opportunity for me,
then I’ll plow through that door.

Whoa! Now that’s what I call controversial. After all, we’ve never heard Barack Obama talk about his faith.

-Chris Jones

THE HOT JOINTS » Religion

New Mohammed Cartoon Sparks Outrage In The Muslim World

Related Posts

It’s Muslims Who Should Be Scrutinized At Airports

Related Posts

Hate Crimes Against Muslims Continues To Decline

Related Posts

Religious Ornaments Banned On Capital Christmas Tree

Related Posts

Christ the Radical

Related Posts

The End of the Religious Right?

Related Posts

God, And The Death Of Atheism…

Related Posts

Video: O’Reilly And Megyn Kelly Scream At Each Other

Related Posts

Video: Pastor Ted Haggard Blames Childhood Sexual Abuse For His Scandal

Related Posts

Gov. Palin Believes In God — Say It Ain’t So

Related Posts