03 October, 2005

Piglet Is A Right Wee Bastard!

Well, apparently Piglet has been banned from a British Municipal office because he offends some Muslims.

Good. That servile twit has it coming. He greviously wronged me many years ago on a trip to Walt Disney World and has been at the top of my hit list ever since. It was one of those goofy stunts a la the garden gnome in Amelie, where you take pictures of an innocuous household item in exotic locales. We had our bear, Xander. There were pictures of Xander on the monorail, Xander in the tub in our room, etc. We wanted a picture of Xander with Piglet in Epcot, but Piglet said no. Because Xander had an "Old Navy" baseball cap on. I know that Piglet is pure and sanctified and would never dream of shilling for a corporate brand. Not our Piglet, beloved of both the collected works of A.A. Milne and revisionist Disney animation. So, instead of sullying his paws, he backed away and left me very upset. You can read the whole dust-up here on UseNet. The confrontation was apparently matter for discussion among the staff cast members at the park, also. Leave it to me to stir up controversy over even the dumbest stuff. Even though the "boy" in question was 30 at the time...

So, now the Great Society wishes us to band together to Free Piglet. Well, since I have great respect for Kathy Shaidle, I suppose I will. But I am going on record as saying that the little oinker owes me.

7 Comments:

At 7:08 AM, October 04, 2005, Blogger John H said...

Did you notice that 'Animal Farm' is also on the offensive banned list.

Here's hoping that Orwell returns from the dead and goes postal..

Amazing the similiarity between the Christian fundamentalist book banning and the Muslim lunacy.

 
At 8:36 AM, October 04, 2005, Blogger Lost Budgie said...

John H said, "Amazing the similiarity between the Christian fundamentalist book banning and the Muslim lunacy."

I have to respectfully disagree with you, Mr. H. There are huge differences vis a vis the tiny percentage of Christians calling for book bans and the large percentage of Muslims who use or support the use of violence and murder to propagate their religion.

In summary - No moral rationale equivalence, and no equivalence of actions between the two groups.

Your bias against Christians is showing. We Christians get very very tired of being compared to Islamists - a group that is arguably the largest and most violent religious sect in the world.

When Christians start putting Muslims in jail for teaching children the Koran, or start to murder Christians who convert to Islam, you can talk about moral equivalence.

 
At 9:07 AM, October 04, 2005, Anonymous Sarcastro said...

Another faith-based initiative from the religion of peace, eh?

Boy, this tolerance thing is really paying off.

By the way Budgie, are you comparing this season's stats for murder and violence in the name of God, or total career stats? Western version of God does have a seven hundred year head start in the whole killin-in-His-name bit. Plus, you had to put in a lot more effort into killing the heathens, pagans, infidels and Jews before the invention of guns, bombs and airliners.

 
At 9:29 AM, October 04, 2005, Blogger John H said...

Hey Lost Budgie - If I am biased against Christians I am biased against myself. I am one of those nuts who believe that Jesus is the son of God. I know that doesn't get me points from a lot of people, but that's where I stand.

Secondly, I was ONLY comparing the book banning mania of the fundamentalist branch with the book banning mania of the Islamists.

I wasn't saying anything besides that. Your inclusion of violence and murder have nothing to do with my point.

Yet, even though I don't think that Christianity has been well served by the actions of many of its followers, the Crusades and the Inquisition are certainly no high marks in our history.

Attempting to stifle what others read is not a great hallmark for any religion.

 
At 10:11 AM, October 04, 2005, Blogger Kat Coble said...

I was going to rush to John's defense, but he's done very well on his own.

Book banning is always a topic of conversation around here on this particular blog, Budgie. John is merely continuing that conversation with this latest.

What I don't understand about any bannings is why we can't merely tell the offended party to grow a pair. It makes absolutely no logical sense, because it should quickly devolve into a disbanding of society as a whole:
"I'm offended by Piglet."
"Your offense offends me. Let's ban your religion"
"Your banning of my religion offends me...let's ban your religion"

And so on and so forth.

I understand being offended by something. I don't understand using that offense as a battering ram to knock down others' structures and societies.

 
At 11:44 AM, October 04, 2005, Anonymous brittney said...

I am so tired of Christians screaming "PERSECUTION!" at the first sign of a differing viewpoint.

 
At 10:19 PM, October 04, 2005, Blogger Dan Kauffman said...

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1093802
Odd isn't no outcry against images of dogs, which are considered FAR more unclean than pigs by a factor of 7.

Oh yes the Union Jack needs to go too, in the latest news.

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/kentuckydan/CommitteesofCorrespondence/index.blog?entry_id=1095414

Muslims Offended by English Flag

 

Post a Comment

<< Home