Caption Smith Memorial
With 2 Turk Heads Atop
In light of the whole Times Square Mosque, I thought to remind us that perhaps we need another kind of memorial – like the heads of our enemies enshrined in stone – on pikes.
Ok, I’m being a little overzealous and brutish, but I just wanted to give some perspective on our contemporary overcompensation towards ‘tolerance.’ Our lack of ability to label evil as evil (read “Islam as evil”) is foolishness masked as fairness, submission masked as tolerance.
Monument in disrepair
WND has published an interesting article about Smith entitled Our most politically incorrect Founding Father.
What was so incorrect about him? Well, only that he was an ardent and outspoken Christian, statesman, and warrior. In fact, his exploits in war were so impressive that the original John Smith Memorial monument, shown here, was adorned with sculptures of three severed Turk heads, memorializing one of his great battles. Now THAT is politically incorrect.
All that is left of the monument today.
The WND article discusses the origin of this monument:
It was 1864 when the Rev. George Beebe determined that America needed a monument to the Christian warrior who first named that stern and rock-bound coast “New England.” The warrior was the former president of the Jamestown colony.
The decapitation incident celebrated by the three stone Muslim heads was just one of hundreds of vignettes from the life of a man who, like the Star Island monument itself, represents all that the political correctness police of the 21st century find so unacceptable: cool headed, firm resolve and manly confidence in the advance of Christendom.
The specific incident in question involved an episode in Smith’s life where he found himself in Romania fighting the Ottoman Turks. When Lord Turbishaw, the Muslim commander, announced that he would battle any single Christian in mounted one-on-one combat, John Smith accepted the challenge. Before thousands of onlookers, a 22-year-old Smith lanced Turbishaw and then lopped off his head in David-over-Goliath-like triumph. Smith proceeded to do essentially the same to a ferocious warrior named Grualgo, and then again, to another Turk named Mulgro. For his heroic deeds, Smith received an insignia bearing three Turkish heads.
Not bad for a guy who was 5’3″ tall! He had a lifetime of exploits, not least of which was surviving the difficulties of the initial colonial settlement at Jamestown.
Original Monument Sketch with the heads of 3 Muslims Atop
Though the monument was partially restored in 1914, but not with the three heads, as far as I can tell from this pictorial history of the John Smith Monument.
You can also read more about the monument at The Ugliest Monument in New England (and here’s another good article with the same title). It looks like a corporation purchased the island in 2006, and is working with a historical society to rebuild it for Smith’s 400 Anniversary – but I bet it won’t have three Muslim heads on top. But maybe it should, to remind the world that Islam has always been an enemy of freedom.
It’s funny how followers of the “Prince of Peace” could become so warlike and ferocious. Why bother with Christ at all? In fact, why bother with xianity at all? I can’t wait to see seeker explain away the sayings of Jesus which counseled non-violence in the face of aggression and evil. It’s funny how christians pick and choose which scriptural bits to follow.
btw: Isn’t about time to retire the boring and irrelevant phrase “politically correct”? It’s become merely a term of abuse when conservatives want to attack anyone who has the temerity to disagree with them.
It's funny how followers of the "Prince of Peace" could become so warlike and ferocious.
Many people, including Christians, are often fooled into thinking that Christianity is a pacifist faith, but this is usually due to superficial understanding of the teachings of scripture, and overly simplistic hermeneutics that misundertand Jesus' teachings.
For example, as I mentioned in my sermon Do Not Judge, if you take Jesus command to "judge not," as a universal imperative, you might conclude that Jesus was teaching that we should not have courts or judges, or that we should not waste time declaring right from wrong, or that we should not bring moral correction to others. Such unbalanced and unintellectual interpretations are common among those who are either uneducated or looking to discredit those who disagree with a pacifist, tolerant spirituality.
In the case of Jesus being the Prince of Peace, what do you think that is supposed to mean? Jesus himself said "I cam not to bring peace, but a sword, and a man's enemies will be those in his own family." What do you think the Prince of Peace meant by that? A superficial "Jesus was a man of peace" answer won't cut it any more than your response to non-pacifist Christians.
But apart from superficiality and ignorance, the ideological roots of this confusion stem from a failure to develop a more mature understanding of the balance and relationship between the following ideas:
– mercy and justice
– mercy and truth
– turning the other cheek v. self defense
– the spread of God's kingdom v. establishing justice and peace in earthly kindoms
– vigilantism v. justice
– veangance v. justice
– a healthy desire for righteous battle for the defense of the innocent v. hatred and selfish aggression
While we should not gloat over the demise of our ideological and political enemies, when our enemies come to represent the height of evil, such as Hitler or Mohammed and those who closely follow his teachings, the death of such leaders should be heralded as both a warning and a celebration of the victory of right over tyranny and hatred.
And in this specific case, the Turks were part of the second wave of Muslim expansion and aggression against the west, and they were just as merciless and oppressive as those we call "Muslim extremists" today, because Islam has been a religion of war and conquering from its inception. It's no wonder a man like Smith was celebrated for his courage against such evil men.
Why should I take seriously your religion, when you can interpret away the plain teaching of Jesus regarding violence while mercilessly applying it to condemn gay people?
You have my wholehearted contempt.
This: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/artic…
is the outcome of xian anti-gay propaganda. You people are cohorts with evil. I see no difference between you and islamist butchers.
Why should I take seriously your religion, when you can interpret away the plain teaching of Jesus regarding violence
Because I have not interpreted away the plain teaching of Jesus, but understood it in it’s context rather than universalizing it while overlooking the other teachings of Jesus and of scripture.
In fact, this mistaken approach to “turn the other cheek” is the kind of un-Christian and immoral pacifism that allows bullies like Hitler and Muslim aggressors to rape, kill, and pillage. There is a time for self-defense, and there is a time for turning the other cheek.
And no one is turning violence on gays. Jesus condemned all sorts of sins (“if a man looks upon a woman with lust, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart”), and so did the Apostle Paul.
Again, the mistake of throwing out the balancing concept (mercy but not truth or justice, forgiveness but not recognition and repentance from sin) is a type of heresy that leads people away from the truth, and away from Jesus, who is the embodiment of grace AND truth. As Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, “I do not condemn you, now go and sin no more.”
He says the same to the homosexual, the adulterer, the liar, and the promiscuous.
You have my wholehearted contempt.
I accept it with honor, since Jesus said that people would hate me for merely communicating his message. He said “rejoice in that day, for great is your reward in heaven.” Not a reward for judging, which I am not doing, but for communicating the truth as best I can.
If I denied that such imbalanced teaching as you suggest was true, or that scripture and nature both condemn homosexuality, I would be a liar like those who say such things. While you direct your contempt at me, it is really directed at God’s righteous judgment and Jesus, who died to free us from such sins rather than have us excuse them and deny Him.
This is the outcome of xian anti-gay propaganda. You people are cohorts with evil. I see no difference between you and islamist butchers.
That is unfortunate that you can't tell the difference, but then, neither can anyone else on the left because they have abandoned discernment and logic for childish polemics, lumping everyone into one group. Convenient, but abysmally mistaken.
Yes, I'm aware that xian scripture condemns gays to hell (the same as the torah and koran), and that Jesus threatened damnation and hell more than anyone else in the Bible. In fact, I agree that taking Jesus' injunctions to pacifism out of context is inaccurate to his teachings. After all, he stated that his teachings didn't change anything stated in the OT. I was just reading in Deuteronomy commands from God to kill anyone who even considers following other religions (sounds a lot like islam). And Jesus said he brought a sword and not peace, telling us we have to hate our family and friends to follow him.
The problem with all this is that there is absolutely no evidence for any of it. It's just whistling in the dark. So much misery and suffering have come from it that I'm surprised that anyone could affect an adherence to it at all. Of course, since you haven't been the object of xianity's oppressiveness, you will not agree, but that's ultimately beside the point. Your ideology gives you support while it gives me nothing but threats and fear.
neither can anyone else on the left because they have abandoned discernment and logic for childish polemics, lumping everyone into one group. Convenient, but abysmally mistaken.
Seeker, don't make the very same mistake that you accuse Louis of doing. That is in one sweeping generalization about the Left that you have in fact clouded the differences within the Left and have put forward the notion in my eyes that you can't, won't, or simply are unable to tell the difference within the different camps inside the Liberal establishment.
Now, I know you are capable of doing this. However, once again you have slipped back into your usual pattern of over generalization of a particular group and reliance of labels because that is the easiest and most expedient way for you to make a point.
Even though you think you are making a point, by taking that easy route you are just weakening your point by demonstrating the Religious Right's inability to tell the difference between the different segments of the Left/Liberal establishment.
Don't be lazy. It doesn't help you in your arguments.
– Silver
I was just reading in Deuteronomy commands from God to kill anyone who even considers following other religions (sounds a lot like islam). And Jesus said he brought a sword and not peace, telling us we have to hate our family and friends to follow him.
I agree with you on the first point, the OT is problematic for Christians, and sounds a lot like Islam in some cases. However, Jesus' words are not words of violence, but of metaphor and comparison.
That is, the "sword" he is talking about represents division that his message will bring. The latter phrase is one of comparison – i.e. in comparison to our love for him, our love for our family must be so much less that it is like hatred. He is demanding first allegiance, since many people are more afraid of what their family thinks than anything else.
since you haven't been the object of xianity's oppressiveness, you will not agree, but that's ultimately beside the point. Your ideology gives you support while it gives me nothing but threats and fear.
Actually, I have been the victim of controlling, fear-based religion. That's why I like to sell thongs on my site ;). I know that moral disapproval sounds like threats and fear, but it's really not. Perhaps Christianity hasn't offered you real faith and hope, or perhaps "my brand" is wrong about homosexuality. Find a gay-affirming church then, or no church at all.
However, because homosexuality is against nature itself, no homosexual can really expect total acceptance of their lifestyle in society, unless that society has gone so far down the road of sickness that such things are celebrated and affirmed – and you can bet that such a society is not far from either moral, political, and practical chaos, or invasion from the likes of Islamists. Freedom without virtue leads to such terrible things – chaos and vulnerability. At least, that's my view.
That is in one sweeping generalization about the Left that you have in fact clouded the differences within the Left and have put forward the notion in my eyes that you can't, won't, or simply are unable to tell the difference within the different camps inside the Liberal establishment.
You are right, the left is not monolithic, since there are such things as pro-life and pro-religious Dems nowadays (they're not shamed to the fringes as much). However, perhaps I should say "far left," or maybe I should just create a more specific moniker for people who make this claim. How about the anti-religionists, or anti-Christianists? I've used the former already. But you are right, using the "left" as a punching bag is probably not useful, so thanks.
However, Sam and Louis have both made this mistake, and Cineaste too. Are there any other liberal commentators here? If they represent the "left,", then perhaps my slur stands. Will anyone admit that this conflation is idiotic, or at least a purposeful misstatement in order to get goads rather than make real progress?
“…homosexuality is against nature itself…”
The last time I looked, I exist within nature. At least I don’t think I live in another dimension. Hey! That’s it! Queers are actually beings from another dimension who, due to yet another of Yahweh’s spectacular f**k-ups (like e.coli and George Bush), have been mistakenly born into this one. Problem solved.
But, of course, when you say “nature” what you really mean is one interpretation of how “nature” works, YOUR interpretation – the patriarchal, heterocentric version of reality. Since I have yet to see any objective evidence that your version of things is the true one, I will summarily dismiss it.
Sort of reminds me of the quip I heard once, “If God have meant men to get f**cked up the ass, He would have put a hole there.”
However, Sam and Louis have both made this mistake, and Cineaste too.
Seeker, that smells like an excuse to me. Because the other side makes the mistake, its ok that I do it. I have never seen you try and engage any of these people and point it out to them like I just did with you. Maybe that takes too much time for you, but I think you should try it rather than be a protagonist in an argument.
Are there any other liberal commentators here?
I think it is pretty safe to say you would label me as a Liberal. Frankly, I could care less what people label me as. So, I would say “Thank You” for calling me a liberal. I don’t connote Liberal or Conservative as a dirty word like many within the Conservative Republican establishment do and have tried to spread.
I represent the left, the middle, and everything in between. I am precisely the kind of Liberal and Realist that confounds the traditional Conservative and Religious Right machine…one that has different stances on issues, religion, and social policy that is based upon history and practicality. One that is not fully blinded by dogma and predisposed bias that maps to my predefined notion of how the world works.
I am precisely the kind of person that when confronted with a stark generalization as you presented here and without any fear pop the balloon and point out just how flawed such a label is and show that there are incredible nuances within the Left and the Right’s Camps.
If they represent the “left,”, then perhaps my slur stands.
Do Sam, Louis and Cineaste represent a segment of the Left’s establishment? Sure. I will buy that. Are they the embodiment of what the Left represents. No.
Sorry Seeker, you are going to just have to work a little harder in nailing people into a label that fits the specific topic at hand and not rely on sweeping generalizations.
– Silver.
Seeker, that smells like an excuse to me. Because the other side makes the mistake,
Not a mistake, I'm just saying that, if I listed out the stereotype of liberals I am referring to, our regular antagonistic commentators would fit it pretty well. Ergo, I assume that most liberals fit that mold.
I am precisely the kind of Liberal and Realist that confounds the traditional Conservative and Religious Right machine
Bully for you. I would say the same about me – hence my nuanced individual stances on abortion, stem cell research, gun control, healthy state/church separation (not the all or nothing view), health care, and Buddhism.
However, I do lean right, and take some "typical" religious right stands, including YEC, homosexuality, and limited government. However, just because I take typical stands does not mean I have not thought about them and am proceeding blindly. I suppose that many people DO proceed that way, kind of how they follow sports teams – it's just a fanatical ego identity thing loosely tied in with poorly thought out values.
I am precisely the kind of person that when confronted with a stark generalization as you presented here and without any fear pop the balloon and point out just how flawed such a label is and show that there are incredible nuances within the Left and the Right's Camps.
OK, your homework assignment is to say the same thing in seven words or less. But bottom line, I agree, I will cease using general monikers and be specific in my <s>namecalling</s> <s>labeling</s> <s>stereotypes</s> use of adjectives ;)