To dogs. Why should our canine friends be demeaned by being conjoined -- even figuratively -- to the head of someone such as Mohammed?

I am referring, of course, to the 2007 cartoon by Swedish artist Lars Vilks, which depicted the Prophet Mohammed with the body of a dog. Vilks has received numerous death threats since the cartoon was first published, and in the last couple of days an arrest was made of a person involved in a new, bizarre plot to kill him. The person arrested was an American, Colleen Renee LaRose, a/k/a Jihad Jane, who allegedly was conspiring with some terrorists in Ireland to assassinate Vilks.

Congrats to the three Swedish newspapers who republished the Vilks cartoon after the latest conspiracy came to light. The papers noted that the threat to Vilks constituted a threat against one of the most fundamental human rights, namely freedom of speech. Bravo. Their actions in supporting Vilks and republishing his cartoons contrast sharply with the craven, apologetic attitude adopted by some after the furor over the 2005 Danish cartoons. Maybe the West has some backbone after all.

My only quibble with the cartoon is that it may be a bit unfair to focus only on Mohammed and, by extension, Islamic fundamentalists. Sure, the Koran is suffused with incitements to violence, and we are all too familiar with contemporary Islamic terrorism. But Judaism and Christianity don't exactly have clean hands. (Hence my three-headed dog.)

There probably never was a Moses, but the actions attributed to him in the Bible portray him as a murderous, genocidal fanatic, willing to slaughter his own people for almost any faux pas in matters religious and positively eager to exterminate anyone who was not a Hebrew. We are often told Moses should be honored as a law-giver and role model in matters of morals. Excuse me? Perhaps his desire to ethnically cleanse the Promised Land made him a role model (ironically) for those Germans who dreamt of Lebensraum , but I fail to see any basis for revering him.

Jesus is a more ambiguous figure. The New Testament does refer frequently to peace and love, but it also attributes to JC the assertion that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. And the book of Revelations does not exactly portray a gentle, forgiving Jesus. What is certain is that Christianity has inspired as much violence and bloodshed as Islam. If we didn't have suicide bombers during the centuries of warfare between Protestants and Christians, it's only because the technology was not available.

So sharp criticism of Islam is appropriate, but let's not forget that almost all religions have been the enemies of religion and the midwives of mindless violence. There are, of course, many believers who are agreeable, responsible, moral, wonderful individuals. But they don't get that way by allowing their lives to be dominated by religious dogma. Slavishly adhering to the supposed teachings of semi-legendary figures who (may have) lived long ago, in conditions starkly different from our own, is not a recipe for an informed, fulfilling, morally laudable life. If you rely solely on religious dogma as your guide to life, you're likely to end up with a dog's breakfast.

On Tuesday, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) had standing to challenge the statute that makes the first Thursday of May a "National Day of Prayer." Although the court did not rule on the merits of FFRF's constitutional claim, the decision on standing was a critical, unexpected victory. To proceed with a lawsuit, a litigant must establish that she or he has been injured and this injury is distinct from a generalized grievance that many other people might share. Establishing standing has proven difficult in many Establishment Clause cases precisely because violations of church-state separation tend to affect many people. That is why those challenging religious symbols on public property typically have to show they have contact with the symbol that is different from the general population. For example, someone from Madison County probably could not sue over a Ten Commandments display in front of the courthouse in Moses County, absent a showing the person frequently had occasion to go to that particular courthouse.

The injury that the FFRF plaintiffs alleged was the sense of exclusion they experience as a result of government endorsement of a religious practice they do not accept. The court admitted that FFRF could not show actual contact with the National Day of Prayer -- which is an intangible -- but nonetheless decided that because plaintiffs are "confronted" with the government's message of endorsement, this is sufficient.

If the district court's decision is upheld on appeal, this could prove to be an important case. It definitely would be a very significant development if Americans concerned about church-state separation could finally test the constitutionality of the law that proclaims that a certain day will be officially commemorated as a National Day of Prayer. (The law has been on the books since 1952.) Unfortunately, given the composition of the current Supreme Court, it is unlikely that FFRF will prevail in the end. You may recall that a few years ago FFRF lost another standing battle before the Supreme Court when they were challenging certain aspects of Bush's faith-based initiative. (In that case, FFRF claimed taxpayer standing.) Here's hoping FFRF's legal fortunes improve this time.

In another development that will bring joy to friends of the First Amendment, Texas fundamentalist Don McLeroy was apparently defeated in the Republican primary for a seat on the Texas Board of Education. McLeroy has become notorious in recent years for aggressively pushing the claim that the United States is a Christian nation, and for trying to get that bizarre view reflected in textbooks used in the public schools. The New York Times recently did an article on McLeroy and his allies emphasizing the progress they have made in recent years. His defeat is significant setback to the Religious Right.

For those not familiar with the C Street Center, it is an establishment that has provided spiritual advice to sexually wayward public officials such as South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford and Senator John Ensign. Apparently, it is the "go-to" place for conservative politicians who have had or are having an affair - a fact that resulted in the C Street Center being lampooned mercilessly in Doonesbury last summer and to the house being dubbed the "Prayboy Mansion." The C Street Center also provides discounted room and board to several members of Congress, who apparently join together for occasional Bible study or prayer. The Center also holds weekly prayer breakfasts and dinners (what? no brunch?) to which all members of Congress are invited.

Because the C Street Center has a close association with a number of elected officials, the complaining clergy maintain in their letter to the Commissioner that its tax exemption undermines the separation of church and state, and opens the door to corruption of government through inappropriate religious influence.

I applaud the clergy for standing up for the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. However, it seems to me that a more effective way to address their concern would be to stop granting tax-exempt status to all religious organizations. Religious institutions would then be free from government oversight and could organize their activities as they see fit, whether the activities in question are revivals, prayer marathons, midnight vigils, snake handling fests, fight clubs for young men (see my other post today), or Bible-based sexual counseling for legislators.

And no taxpayer would have to support activities that violate their freedom of conscience.

Some churches are now offering classes in mixed martial arts and are staging fights --all in an effort to attract a demographic largely absent from many churches, namely young men 18 to 30. As the New York Times has reported, these churches are now hearing shouts of "Finish the fight! To the Head!" Besides trying to attract more young men to the pews (and to the fight ring), this emphasis on muscular Christianity reflects the desire of some clergy to inject more machismo into their churches.

Funny, I had not noticed a dearth of male-friendly doctrine in religious institutions.

But, in any event, I say more power to them. Churches have always used a number of different programs and promotional devices to get people in the door, whether it's bingo, free doughnuts, couples nights, or the blessing of pets. Perhaps now some cutting-edge churches can combine some of these efforts so we can have a couples fight night on which bets can be taken.

Just remember the first rule of Fight Club in churches is not "Don't talk about Fight Club" but "Tithe."

Some of you may be aware already that Geert Wilders, the flamboyant, right-wing Dutch politician and writer, has been placed on trial in Amsterdam. He is charged with "group defamation" and inciting hatred and discrimination against minorities, in particular Muslims.

I say "may" be aware because the trial has not received much press coverage in the United States. Relatively short articles did run in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal at the beginning of the trial, but since then there has been hardly anything in the news.

If you want updates on the trial, Wilders has just set up a website with current information

I believe this trial should receive more attention because it is a troubling example of how hate speech laws can be used to suppress free expression. One does not have to agree with what Wilders has said - and I do not endorse many of his statements - to be concerned about the use of criminal sanctions to curb speech, especially in a country with a long tradition of respecting individual liberties such as The Netherlands. The case may set a dangerous precedent.

Obviously, the right to free speech is not absolute. In the United States, direct incitements to violence or direct threats of bodily harm are proscribed. But there is a significant difference between saying "let's kill that Muslim" and saying that we must "stop the tsunami of Islamization" or claiming that the Koran is comparable to Mein Kampf in the harm that it causes - which are some of the statements Wilders has made.

However, as always, I urge individuals to make their own judgments after reviewing the relevant facts. If you've not done so already, you should take a look at Fitna, Wilders notorious 17-minute film in which he draws attention to Islamic extremism (caution: the film contains disturbing images), and you should also review some of the statements attributed to Wilders. These statements have been posted on an anti-Wilders website. (The website is in Dutch, but you can get it easily translated through Google.)

Every week, if not more often, it seems there is a reminder about the ridiculous disputes caused by religion. Last week, we had the controversy over gun sights with New Testament messages. This week there is an escalation of the controversy in Malaysia about what word non-Muslims can use to refer to God.

Here's the background: On December 31, the Malaysia High Court ruled that a Catholic newspaper could use the word "Allah" when referring to God, overturning a government ban on use of that word by non-Muslims. The Catholic newspaper argued that in the Malay language, "Allah" means "God," so there was no effective way to discuss God without that word. The recommended substitute, "tuhan," which means "lord," has different connotations, suggesting a political ruler or boss, and also would have made it difficult to translate expressions such as "the Lord God." The Catholic newspaper also pointed out that the word "Allah" was used in the Arabic language to designate God in pre-Islamic times, so its history is not tied to Islam.

(Actually, I think we should call God "Brownie," the nickname for Bush's head of FEMA. It suggests the right level of incompetence, especially when dealing with disasters.)

Perhaps not unexpectedly, the ruling sparked protests and violence, including attacks by Muslims on churches. Following an appeal by the government, the High Court stayed its ruling.

But it could not stay the turmoil between Muslims and Christians (and other religious minorities). In the latest incident, the severed heads of wild boars were left at two mosques. Since Muslims regard pigs as unclean, this is considered a grave insult.

When I read a story about the last incident, I was reminded of Karen Armstrong's claim in her recent book The Case for God. (My review will appear in the next issue of Free Inquiry .) Armstrong claims that mainstream religion is concerned with ritual and conduct, not beliefs, and disputes over words and concepts have only been the concern of fringe elements in the world's different faith systems.

Oh, really? Pardon the pun, but this is just hogwash. Ordinary believers throughout history have been very much preoccupied with dogma and the words and concepts used to articulate their beliefs. Saying the wrong word, rejecting accepted concepts can get you killed. And apparently one can't even discuss God if doing so entails use of a word regarded sacred by some. Don't touch my Allah!

Maybe some day people will just drop all the God-talk and we can stop this nonsense.

(OK, I know that's wishful thinking.)

In the meantime, I feel sorry for the boars -- especially as they were probably more intelligent than the disputants on either side.

No, really.

As one example, Trijicon has inscribed 2COR4:6 on some of its sights, which is a reference to Second Corinthians and a verse that exults over the glory of God as reflected in the face of Jesus Christ.

Seems as though Jesus can not only guide us along a straight and narrow path, but bullets too. Ready, aim, pray, fire.

Forgetting church-state issues, is the use of New Testament verses on gun sights unseemly? Not really. Remember Jesus, according to one verse, came not to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34). Trijicon just makes clear that he came to bring hot lead also.

Many condemnations have been made of Pat Robertson through the years -- all of them richly deserved. Robertson is the object of scorn once again for his recent claim that the people of Haiti made a "pact with the Devil" in order to gain independence from the French in the early 1800s. Robertson was so sure of his facts that he emphasized this point by saying: "true story." As a result of this pact, Haiti has been visited with many problems and natural disasters, including the recent devastating earthquake.

Robertson's intimate knowledge of Satan's contracts makes one wonder whether he's ever worked in Satan's legal department, but I'm not here to ridicule Pathetic Pat (why pile it on?) but to thank him for being honest and forthright about God.

In recent years, in response to increased critical examination of religion, many liberal religious apologists have claimed that these critiques of religion have it all wrong. There is no all-powerful, personal God, overseeing and intervening in our world, who guides hurricanes away or toward land depending on His will. Instead, there is only some nebulous spirit or life-force that fills us with joy, and makes us want to join hands and sing "Kumbaya." In fact, some scholars, such as Karen Armstrong, argue that religion is not about belief in a personal God at all, but about commitment and activity.

For the ordinary believer this is all rubbish. Ordinary believers - and they do believe - have faith in a robust God, who can deliver them from evil (or not). Pat Robertson reflects the views of the ordinary believer. You see them all the time on TV being interviewed after some natural disaster. They claim they prayed to God to spare them from the tornado/hurricane/earthquake and God answered their prayers. Notably, the people who died can't speak to the issue of why their prayers were not answered, but Robertson at least tries to offer an explanation. The victims were cursed for some reason, and in the case of Haiti it was because of an imprudent pact with the Devil. (Is there ever a prudent pact with the Devil?)

Of course, Pat Robertson's claim is absurd. But his claim usefully underscores the absurdity of religious belief in general, instead of obscuring it with a veil of touchy-feely doubletalk. So, one small cheer for Pat Robertson.

But he's still a jerk.

I don't think I have to tell you that CFI vigorously opposes government suppression of free expression. There is no guarantee that freedom of speech and inquiry will lead us to the truth, but it's a sure thing that censorship creates formidable barriers for those searching for the truth --which is why governments that have things to hide resort to censorship.

China is one such government. China has utilized highly sophisticated filters and firewalls that block access to "subversive" Internet sites, such as Facebook and YouTube. But China not only restricts its citizens' access to information, but it also engages in cyber warfare, hacking into servers to obtain information about human rights activists.

It was one such recent cyber attack that led Google to make an extraordinary announcement the other day. Google stated that there was evidence that a highly sophisticated attack originating in China had been carried out against its infrastructure, and that one goal of this attack was to access Gmail accounts of Chinese dissidents and activists. Importantly, in light of this development, Google stated that it would "review the feasibility of [its] business operations in China," effectively suggesting that it would pull out of China.

And most significantly, Google explained the rationale for this decision to reconsider doing business in China. Google stated that China's actions go "to the heart of a much bigger global debate about freedom of speech." Part of that debate centers on whether Western businesses should assist Chinese economic development even when they know that China routinely violates the rights of its citizens. The usual argument previously offered for doing business in China (other than the obvious commercial one) is that this would result in increased contact with the West and increased access by the Chinese to Western sources of information. The unstated and mistaken premise in this argument was that the Chinese government would permit its citizens this greater access to information. It is now abundantly clear it will not. China has become more authoritarian, not less, perhaps in part because its economic development has emboldened its leaders. They believe they can keep China's people content even if they are denied basic freedoms, and they have nothing to fear from an economically weakened West. China's official reaction to the Google announcement , just released a short while ago, confirms that it will not yield on the issue of human rights.

Congrats to Google for putting human rights ahead of dollars (of course, Google can afford to, but financial self-sufficiency doesn't always prevent moral compromise). I'd say "three cheers for Google" but it's not clear yet what Google's final position will be. I hope Google adheres to its tough, principled stand, and that other companies will follow its example.

Some have argued use of these scanners constitutes an unnecessary invasion of privacy and oppose use of such scanners. The government has tried to reassure the public by saying alternative methods may be used for those who object, such as a pat-down or sniffer dogs, and by emphasizing that the person reading the scan will be in a separate room, and the scan will obscure the traveler's face. A few government officials have even suggested that we should have male and female lines to provide travelers the assurance that their image will be viewed only by members of the same sex.

First: isn't all this prudery a bit misplaced? We're talking about methods to prevent mass murder, for goodness sake.

Second: since we're focused on prudery, why don't we think strategically and use the bizarre fixations and phobias some Islamic extremists have to our advantage? Recall many of these fanatics abhor women, think them dirty, and don't want them anywhere near their "pure" bodies. For example, Mohammad Atta's last will specified that he did not want any women anywhere near his grave. The thought that some infidel woman would see their willy would give these creeps the willies.

So I say far from downplaying the intrusiveness of these scanners, we should emphasize the accuracy and clarity of their images, and broadcast to the Islamic world that we intend to use predominantly female security personnel to view the images. Who knows? Perhaps fear of having their body viewed by a woman may cause at least a few of these would-be terrorists to come up short -- so to speak.