Huge Roadside Crosses Will Not Be Going Back Up in Utah

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving 12-foot metal crosses on Utah public land, essentially affirming a lower court decision that declared them an unconstitutional state endorsement of Christianity. I wrote about this case previously here and here. Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to hear the case and wrote a strong dissent,

chastising it for missing an opportunity to provide better guidance to lower courts on the complicated issue of public religious displays."Today the Court rejects an opportunity to provide clarity to an Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles," Thomas wrote.

I often agree with Thomas but not this time. I think the lower court ruling was reasonable, and that further time on this case would be a waste of the Supreme Court's time. Far from offering "clarity," Supreme Court involvement could just as easily create more confusion.

Outstanding Article on Evolution and Why it Threatens Christianity

I saw that Richard Dawkins wrote a response to Rick Perry on evolution in the Washington Post. Unfortunately the good points are preceded by typical leftist nonsense, which will cause the entire column to be dismissed out of hand by anyone who needs to read it. But today there is a far better article in the same "On Faith" section by Paula Kirby. Here are a couple of excerpts.

Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.

Remember that 'ignorance' is not an insult, but merely a term for 'lack of knowledge'. Many of the people who protest so vociferously against the teaching of evolution do not understand how overwhelmingly strong the evidence for it is; and many of those who proclaim “But it's only a theory” do not understand that the scientific and everyday usages of the word 'theory' are very different.

She zeros in on why evolution is such a problem for many Christians.

a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

I have heard similar explanations from Christians I've asked why it isn't possible to accommodate their beliefs to scientific reality. To them that reality destroys their beliefs, therefore it can't be real. Instead of rejecting their system of myths, they prefer to reject scientific reality. The whole article is well-worth reading.

Unimpressed by Theology

There's a good post at evolutionblog called "Where Can I Find the Really Good Theology? Part One." The author, Jason Rosenhouse makes some good points about Christian theology. His post was triggered by an argument between Jerry Coyne and a Catholic philospher, but in general it is a response to a common Christian suggestion.

We New Atheist types are often lectured about the need for studying theology. The idea is that if we tuned out the distressingly popular and highly vocal forms of religious extremism and pondered instead “the best religion has to offer,” then we would not be so hostile to religion.

But for Rosenhouse, reading Christian theology had the opposite effect.

I expected at least to find a lot of food for thought. Instead, with each book and essay I read I found myself ever more horrified by the sheer vacuity of what these folks were doing. I came to despise their endlessly vague and convoluted arguments, their relentless smugness towards nonbelievers, and, most seriously, the complete lack of any solid reason for thinking they weren't just making it up as they went along. I thought perhaps I was just reading the wrong writers, and that I would eventually come to the really good theology. But I never did.

Like Rosenhouse, I too have read a fair amount of Christian theology. And my conclusions were similar. The whole post is worth reading.

Why People Dislike Islam - Egyptian Edition

I've posted before regarding the contrived term of Islamophobia, which is used in an attempt to smear critics of Islam. Dislike of Islam is quite rational. There are a never-ending series of examples why. Most of them involve the actions of Muslims, who give the entire religion and its adherents a bad name. The latest comes from Egypt, where radical Muslim mobs have been attacking Christians, and enforcing their version of proper Islamic behavior on fellow Muslims.

Ultraconservative Islamists, known as Salafis, have taken to streets and mosques with fiery rhetoric. Stores selling alcohol have been attacked and a man accused of befriending prostitutes had an ear cut off by radicals. Muslim crowds stopped trains and protested in April against the appointment of a Christian governor in the southern region of Qena. ... Gunfire erupted. Coptic homes and shops were attacked and gasoline bombs hurled. A group of Muslim men reportedly broke off later and headed toward the Virgin Mary Church. They burned it and clashed with parishioners for hours.

This sort of vicious intolerance makes Islam look bad -- and such actions are hardly restricted to Egypt. You can find plenty of examples of other religious groups acting badly, but if you add them all together, the incidents won't come close to the sheer number from Muslims. This, not an imaginary "Islamophobia," is the primary reason why Islam has a bad reputation and some look upon Muslims with suspicion or outright dislike.

Obama's Christian Pandering

President Obama has never been known for his religiosity. But recently he turned into an effusive Christian, quoting the Bible, and speaking the sort of religious language that was familiar to me growing up in a conservative Christian household.

Using the kind of personal religious language that he had once shied away from in public, Obama spoke of "the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross" in an Easter prayer breakfast for about 150 guests and staff.

"And we're reminded that in that moment, (Jesus) took on the sins of the world -- past, present and future -- and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection,"... Obama quoted from the Book of Isaiah -- "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities," ... "This magnificent grace, this expansive grace, this `Amazing Grace' calls me to reflect," Obama said. "And it calls me to pray. It calls me to ask God for forgiveness for the times that I've not shown grace to others, those times that I've fallen short."

Am I being unfair to Obama when I call this pandering? I don't think so. People don't suddenly start talking this way unless they undergo some sort of conversion. The president was meeting with various Christian leaders for Easter, and in my opinion went way overboard in trying to sound as Christian as possible. As the article indicates, he's trying still to convince those who don't believe he's a Christian. It's too bad he has to try, but in my opinion he's trying way too hard.

Reasons for Disbelief

Over at Secular News Daily there is an article by Gordon Douglas called "Reasons for disbelief: The top ten reasons I am an atheist." I always find those sorts of discussions or essays interesting, so I thought I'd comment on his reasons and see if they correlated with my own.

Other Religions Exist. That one's not convincing. You can believe your own religion is the only true one. That idea had little influence on my atheism.

Faith is Rewarded to the Same Degree as Disbelief. True, but not something I really thought about until after I had already lost faith.

God Can't Be Proven. I would put that instead as, there is no convincing evidence of God/gods. This is obviously a key influence on most atheists being atheists.

The God of the Bible Can be Disproved. Not true. Even though the God of the Bible appears purely fictional as Douglas notes, it is theoretically possible that he could exist.

Religion is, By Nature, Deluding. Absolutely. But again, that's something you see much more clearly after you leave it.

Science is Obviously Better. Except that there are plenty of people who seem to have no problem being scientists, or pro-science while still being religious. This had no real impact on me becoming an atheist.

The Origins of All Religions are Clear. Yes. Once you really start thinking about it and questioning it, the idea that religion is just man-made starts to creep in -- unless you beat it back with irrational faith.

There's No Difference. Between religion and a so-called "relationship with God." Yes, this false assertion grated on my nerves even when I was a child. Why was it that my nominally religious friends saw our family as very religious, yet I was told we weren't following a religion, and that "true" Christianity wasn't about being religious?

Religion is Destructive. This was never a reason for me, and I think it can be overstated. Religion also has positive effects.

Christians Don't Really Get Persecuted. This isn't as stupid as it appears, just a bad summary line. What he means is that Christians in America are not persecuted as some claim to be. That's true, but had nothing to do with me becoming an atheist.

Evil Exist in the World. Yes, the problem of evil has probably made many atheists, along with all related questions regarding the supposed nature of God. From a philosophical standpoint, I'd put that whole category as the number one reason I rejected Christianity. Outright atheism came later though.

A Christian Who Gets It

At the Christian Post there's an article called "How Not to Fight Atheism." The author, R. Albert Mohler Jr. is writing in reaction to the controversy caused by a recent atheist bus ad campaign in Fort Worth, Texas. To recap, a local secular group ran bus ads with the slogan, "Millions of Americans are Good Without God." Naturally that was far too much for the easily offended religious, and a Christian group responded with both a bus boycott and complaints to municipal government. The end result?

The Fort Worth Transportation Authority voted December 15 to ban all religious ads on buses. The policy took effect January 1, 2011. According to press reports, “both sides cheered the decision.”

Mohler points out that by silencing an atheist message, Christians cut off their own noses to spite their faces, and also managed to silence their own religious messages.

Christians are sometimes our own worst enemy, especially when we claim to be offended. Those pastors and concerned Christians who demanded that the transportation authority ban the atheist ads actually gave the secularists the Grand Prize. By precipitating (and, of all things, celebrating) a ban on all religious messages from this public space, these Christians surrendered Gospel opportunities simply because they were offended by an atheist advertisement.

And he asks a great question,

Are Christians so insecure that we fear a weakly-worded advertisement on a public bus?

Yes, as a matter of fact many of them are. It's also good to see a Christian declare that Christians don't have a right not to be offended.

Being a Christian does not mean never having to be offended.

Would that there were more Christians (and members of other religions) with this writer's attitude and sense.

Obama's Pointless Pandering to Christians

There's an article at Politics Daily called, "Obama Tries to Reassert His Christian Bona Fides, With Words and Deeds." According to the column, along with poll numbers showing that 1 in 5 Americans think the president is a Muslim, Obama has reacted to conservatives using various incidents to question whether he is really much of a Christian.

if the accusations strain credulity, they can also affect public perceptions. So it was likely no coincidence that during the holidays the president seemed to take every opportunity to put the "Christ" in Christmas.

Obama has been making numerous references to his Christian faith, using biblical quotations, and conducting a couple of church photo ops. Politico claims that there has been a massive upswing in religious-type rhetoric of late.

Obama has publicly mentioned his “Christian faith” more times in the past three months than he has over the past year. He has more frequently cited passages of the Bible, including repeated references to the spirit of Genesis 4:9 — “I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper” — which was a mainstay of Obama’s 2010 campaign stump speech. And he’s taken his family to church twice, a shift for a president who has preferred to worship privately since the end of the 2008 campaign.

In my opinion, his actions are completely pointless. People who think he's a Muslim -- despite the evidence -- are unlikely to be swayed by much of anything, since their beliefs aren't exactly based on rational analysis. Conspiracy-theory thinking is immune to real evidence. In fact, Obama's increased Christian posturing will probably be viewed as a transparent attempt to conceal his true Muslim faith.

As for other Christians who question whether Obama is really a serious believer, I doubt that sprinkling in some Bible verses, showing up at church a couple times, and generally acting more religious is going to convince many people. It's going to come off -- rightly in my opinion -- as cynical political pandering. Why even bother?

New Ad for Burn a Koran Day

h/t In My Copious Free Time

Hypocrite in Chief

As everyone knows, President Obama recently spoke out with regard to the Park51 project,  a project that roughly 70% of America feels is tasteless or offensive and should be moved elsewhere. Here's what he had to say about it.

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," ... "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

He later expanded on those remarks, but continued to emphasize the rights of the developers to proceed regardless of public opposition.

But now we have another situation involving the first amendment, with a small religious group wanting to burn a book on their own private property. This action is even more unpopular than the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero. But since the president is such a strong supporter of the first amendment naturally he took the same position. Wrong.

I just hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values of Americans. That this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance. And as a very practical matter, as commander of chief of the Armed Forces of the United States I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan. ... it is frustrating. Now, on the other hand, we are a government of laws. And so, we have to abide by those laws. And my understanding is that he can be cited for public burning. But that's the extent of the laws that we have available to us. You know, part of this country's history is people doing destructive or offensive or harmful things. And yet, we still have to make sure that we're following the laws. And that's part of what I love about this country. [emphasis mine]

Where's our valiant defender of the first amendment now? He's bemoaning the fact that our laws inhibit him from taking action to shut down the Koran burning. Now the first amendment is a problem. He mentions citing him for "public burning." Apparently the administration has been searching for ways to suppress the religious freedom and free expression of this church. It's just too bad that the first amendment stands in its way. 

Remember all the times the public has been lectured by liberals like Obama about how we can't let fear of terrorism compromise our rights and freedom? Remember all the talk about "fearmongering," and how if we give in to fear, and compromise our principles Al Qaeda wins? But now one person plans a calculated act designed to offend Muslims, and suddenly fear of their reaction means that the entire force of the government must be directed at intimidating him into changing his mind. It's doing everything possible to figure out how it can get around the first amendment to shut him down. Obama is a gutless hypocrite.

Military Religious Freedom Foundation Wants to Distribute Korans

Seriously. An organization supposedly dedicated to the First Amendment, and keeping religion a private matter within the military, is actually organizing a drive to give Korans to the Afghan Army.

After being contacted by scores of our active duty military clients asking us to do something in response to Terry Jones’s planned “Burn A Koran Day,” MRFF has decided that the most appropriate response would not be to try to stop Jones, but to donate to the Afghan National Army, as a gesture of good will and a statement of opposition to this entirely un-American act of religious bigotry, a new Qur’an for each one destroyed by Jones and his followers.

They are responding to an actual exercise of freedom of religion -- albeit an obnoxious one -- by promoting the Islamic scriptures. According to their own mission statement,

No religion or religious philosophy may be advanced by the United States Armed Forces over any other religion or religious philosophy.

So why are they going to distribute Korans? What does the Afghan Army have to do with a single civilian Christian fanatic making a symbolic personal statement inside the U.S.? This organization that is supposedly so concerned with equality among religious beliefs within the U.S. military is pandering to Afghans where Islamic supremacy is the rule.

What are the odds of the MRFF ever distributing Bibles to the U.S. Army under any circumstances whatsoever, even if Muslims fanatics burned a 10,000 Bible pyramid in downtown Kabul? The Military Religious Freedom Foundation -- except when religious freedom involves doing something that offends Muslims. Then it's the Military Koran Distribution Foundation.

h/t Friendly Atheist

Giant Roadside Crosses Ruled Unconstitutional

I wrote about this issue last year. To recap, a couple of members of the Utah Highway Patrol Association have been putting up metal crosses along the highway to honor fallen officers. But unlike most roadside crosses, these are 12 feet high. American Atheists filed suit to have them removed as a violation of church/state separation, and an appeals court has agreed. The original lawsuit was thrown out.

The appeals court judges disagreed. They said the critical issue was how the large white crosses on public land would be perceived by motorists and others. “We conclude that the cross memorials would convey to a reasonable observer that the state of Utah is endorsing Christianity,” they said. “The memorials use the preeminent symbol of Christianity.” ... The judges said they were also concerned that the memorials included the insignia of the Utah Highway Patrol. They said the combination of the cross and insignia links the state with a particular religious symbol.

I think the appeals court is correct, but as I wrote in the earlier article, ordering that the UHP symbol be removed from the crosses might have been enough of a remedy, rather than taking them down entirely.

Why Did God Make People?

This is just one of the many amusing cartoons at lol god.

The Denial of God Fallacy

When Christians are confronted by disbelief, a common counter argument many deploy against atheism is that atheists are in denial about God, or rebelling against him because of psychological reasons. They might know absolutely nothing about the atheist in question, but have little hesitation in pretending to understand how his/her mind works. You can find the latest example of this sort of knee-jerk anti-atheist reaction at Christianity Today.  

So-called philosopher, James S Spiegel thinks he has atheists all figured out. He even wrote a book about it. I question his label of philosopher because his thinking is amazingly shallow, and simply repeats one of the most common anti-atheist attacks used by even minimally educated Christians. He's also apparently arguing based on a series of mistaken assumptions. I wonder if he has ever had any sort of friendly discussion with an atheist, or actually asked any questions to find out why an atheist holds certain views. 

While atheists insist that their foundational reason for rejecting God is the problem of evil or the scientific irrelevance of the supernatural, the Christian philosopher says the argument is "only a ruse" or "a conceptual smoke screen to mask the real issue – personal rebellion"

Atheists do not necessarily have one or two reasons for disbelief. Some have many reasons. And he doesn't even acknowledge the biggest one -- the lack of evidence for the existence of God. It gets worse.

"Atheism is not the result of objective assessment of evidence, but of stubborn disobedience; it does not arise from the careful application of reason but from willful rebellion. Atheism is the suppression of truth by wickedness, the cognitive consequence of immorality.

These are typical assertions without evidence, based on particular assumptions that aren't shared by the people he is attempting to psychoanalyze. Why would a supposed philosopher advance such a ludicrous explanation for atheism? Because like many believers, God is just so obvious to him, that he simply can't understand how anyone could fail to believe. It must be caused by wickedness, rebellion, sin, and disobedience.

God has made His existence plain from creation – from the unimaginable vastness of the universe to the complex micro-universe of individual cells, Spiegel notes. Human consciousness, moral truths, miraculous occurrences and fulfilled biblical prophecies are also evidence of the reality of God.

None of those things makes God's existence "plain." A believer with philosophical credentials should at least be able to understand that many people see things differently, and see a lack of evidence where he sees a mountain. But Spiegel isn't capable of that level of thought.

Spiegel says the atheist's problem is rebellion against the plain truth of God, as clearly revealed in nature.

Again, atheists do not think God is revealed in nature, let alone clearly. We aren't "rebelling" against anything. We simply don't believe in your deity. What you see as overwhelming evidence for God, we see as superstition, an unconvincing & unnecessary attempt to find supernatural reasons behind natural phenomena.

The funniest part of the article is when Spiegel attempts to explain why those evil atheists just don't get it.

"There is a phenomenon that I call 'paradigm-induced blindness,' where a person's false worldview prevents them from seeing truths which would otherwise be obvious. Additionally, a person's sinful indulgences have a way of deadening their natural awareness of God

Here's a guy who lives in a bubble, who views everything through the narrow prism of his religious beliefs. He's incapable of even understanding that people evaluate evidence by different standards, or that others can honestly disagree without having some sort of evil motivation. He's a prime example of "paradigm-induced blindness." Everyone who holds a different view of what he considers "truth" does so because they are sinful and in denial about God. No doubt his book will be a big seller with Christians who want to reinforce their own misconceptions about atheists.

Public Prayer

Many atheist criticisms of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, often hit familiar themes. But occasionally someone brings up a good point I haven't seen before. Mark at Proud Atheists has an excellent post up called, "'I’ll Pray For You'." He notes that the Bible specifically instructs people to pray secretly, and condemns forms of public prayer as hypocrisy. Yet numerous Christians feel free to ignore these instructions.

Liberal forms of Christianity do not adhere to biblical literacy, and basically pick and choose from biblical teachings. This is also true of the largest conservative Christian denomination, the Catholic Church. Its practices are founded on tradition and church teaching. The Bible is important, but in a subsidiary role. If you doubt this, here on Saint Valentine's Day, see if you can find the biblical doctrine of Catholic sainthood. So maybe we should give those Christians a pass on violating biblical instructions on prayer. But what about the huge numbers of evangelical Protestants, especially here in the U.S.?

Many evangelical, fundamentalist, and conservative Protestant Christians venerate the Bible as the literal word of God. The basis for their faith itself is Sola Scriptura, it rests on scripture alone. Millions of these believers are so convinced of the divine authority of the Bible that they reject multiple branches of modern science in favor of the Genesis creation myth. The Bible's words guide their thinking all sorts of areas, such as in their hostility to homosexuality. But for some reason, these same conservative, Bible-believing Christians, are among the worst serial public prayers around. Not only do they refuse to obey biblical instructions to pray secretly and unobtrusively, but they hold prayer meetings & prayer breakfasts, demand that students be allowed to pray openly in public schools, and get offended at the suggestion that public prayers at school events such as football games might not be a good idea. Worst of all, some of them even preach on television and pray in front of millions of viewers, making their prayers as obnoxiously public as possible.

The Bible calls people who offer up public prayers "hypocrites." What should we call people that take their belief in Biblical literacy to ridiculous extremes, yet refuse to obey clear, simple Biblical instructions on how to pray?

Don't Let Your Pets Starve

When you ascend to heaven during the Rapture. Let atheists take care of them. I wish I'd thought of this.

A new business promises to care for the pets of people who are transported suddenly to heaven in the Rapture, an event that some evangelical Christians believe will precede the Apocalypse as described in the Book of Revelation. Most Rapture experts say that when the faithful go to Jesus, their pets will stay on Earth with the non-believers.

Check out Eternal Earth-Bound Pets.com. 

We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each 
Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you've received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.

He's taken in $11,000 so far. I'll bet he could make more with an aggressive marketing campaign.

The Flexible Definition of a True Christian

This Christmas I received a DVD from relatives called, "Is America A Christian Nation," by David Barton. For those who haven't heard of it, it is basically a piece of propaganda designed to support the view that America was founded as a Christian nation, and that everything wrong with the country today is a result of getting away from our close relationship with God. Like most propaganda, it cherry-picks evidence that seems to support its thesis, and ignores or minimizes everything else. As I listened to Barton select quotes from the founding fathers that supposedly indicate their strong Christian beliefs, I was struck by just how flexible the "true Christian" definition can become.

Conservative Christians, fundamentalists, whatever you want to call them, normally have a very narrow definition of what it means to be a Christian. In their view, the vast majority of people calling themselves Christian are not "true" Christians at all. I saw this from my own personal experience growing up. The people we called Christians were those who met certain criteria, such as believing in Jesus as their personal savior, the acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant, inspired Word of God, and the doctrine that salvation was by faith alone, not works. This left out most Catholics, most mainstream Christian denominations, and many other Christians. 

But isn't it amazing how flexible and inclusive the definition of Christian becomes when it is time to argue that America was founded as a Christian nation? There's no question that a modern individual who held beliefs similar to Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, or a number of the other founders would not be considered a true Christian by Christian fundamentalists. But yet they have no problem claiming the founding fathers as Christian, based on cherry-picked statements from their writings.

Much Ado About Nothing - Psalm 109:8 Version

Left-wingers have been all hyped up about a some conservatives pushing a message about prayer for Obama in the sense of Psalm 109:8. The prayer is basically a wish for death, since it contains the sentence: "May his children be orphans and his wife a widow". Naturally people on the left, utter hypocrites who ignored or downplayed eight years of rabid hatred against Bush and Cheney, are frightened and horrified. Anytime anyone on the right says anything that might be viewed as a threat to President Obama, it's oh so serious and threatening. Yet when radical Muslims commit acts of terrorism, we need to downplay the impact of Islam, and ignore the fact that radical Islam is the inspiration behind a massive amount of terrorist activity. But at the same time we need to pretend that radical Christians -- a threat roughly comparable to a fly speck in contrast to the radical Islamist mountain -- are a dangerous menace.  

As usual this is much ado about nothing. Many of the people pushing the Psalm 109:8 theme probably regard it as dark humor, not something to be taken all that seriously. But more importantly, they are advocating leaving the disposition of President Obama to God. Unless you think God is going to intervene to kill the president, there's no actual threat. We know that prayer doesn't regrow amputated limbs. It doesn't assassinate people either. 

A Prime Example of the Current Difference Between Islam & Other Religions

There's a new movie coming out called, 2012. It's cinematic sequences show the destruction of major landmarks, including some religious ones such as the Sistine Chapel, the statue of Christ the Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro, and a Buddhist temple. But guess what isn't in the movie? That's right, there are no images of Islamic holy sites being destroyed. Is that because it just isn't part of the story? No. Apparently the director, Roland Emmerich, wanted to include a scene of the Kaaba, in Saudia Arabia, but was talked out of it by his co-screenwriter. 

"Well, I wanted to do that, I have to admit ... but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. ... We have to all ... in the Western world ... think about this. You can actually ... let ... Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is.

When people look upon Islam and Muslims with suspicion, it isn't just because of bigotry -- as some would have you believe. It's because of Muslims and their actions. True, it's only a minority of Muslims who are the problem. But it's a problem big enough that a major filmmaker can't put a scene in a movie without fear of a violent Muslim reaction. That's something to remember the next time someone tries to pretend that Christian extremism is some sort of major threat in any way comparable to the threat of radical Islam.

Atheists and Respect for Religion

h/t Random Words