I actually heard about this story on the radio driving to work one day last week and I loved it so much, I found the article online to use for one of my posts this week.
If you happen to be driving along interstate 40 in Amarillo, Texas, you'll definitely see plenty of truck stops and travel centers. There is one, though, that will probably catch your attention a little more readily than the others. That's because the name of this one isn't Love's or Flying J or Pilot.
This one is called the Jesus Christ is Lord Not a Swear Word Travel Center. Owner Sam Kholi wants to provide a clean, safe atmosphere for travelers that also puts his Christian faith at the foreground. There are Bible verses on the support columns at gas pumps, t-shirts with the travel center logo and Sam even bought his own fleet of semi trucks with the travel center name and Bible verses painted in red letters. Sam doesn't sell any cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets or racy movies in the non-smoking facility.
The travel center seems to be a pretty big hit with Christians traveling along I-40. Michael Burton of Inverness, Florida, says he admires Sam's boldness.
"I am a person who, when I know a Christian is offering what I need with competitive prices, I'll go to the Christian business," Burton said. "I am prejudiced for God's people."
When I first head this story on the radio, the word that best describes my immediate reaction is tickled. I think it's great that there are still Christians out there who aren't apologetic about their beliefs. I think too many of us are afraid of steppingon someone's toes if we talk about our faith too much. And heaven forbid we do anything that's not considered "politically correct" (whatever that even is anymore).
I think it's great what Sam has done. What better ministry than a truck stop? He's going to encounter every kind of person you can think of with this business and every single one is a chance for him to share Jesus.
As Jeff Criswell, manager of the store, says, "If they've never opened a Bible, they'll be able to see it here."
The more I read about Sam Kholi, the more I like this guy. I wish that I could be that bold. Heck, my fears cause me to shy away from talking about my faith with co-workers and here is someone who is doing the equivalent of shouting from the rooftops. No, he has surpassed that. With the fleet of trucks, he's able to spread this message all over the country, to MILLIONS of people! At the truck stop, he has countless opportunites every day to share and teach.
I think it's wonderful that he has been blessed enough to provide a service like this. While he does provide for the basic needs of travellers and truck drivers, he is also providing so much more than any other roadside convenience store can offer.
Sometimes all it takes is just to pique someone's curiosity. While a traveler might not talk to anyone while at the Jesus Christ is Lord Not a Swear Word Travel Center, maybe one of those verses on the gas pump might stick with them. It'll stay in the back of their mind until God sends the right person at the right time to them and they do start asking those important questions.
I think what Sam has done is pretty fantastic. I hope he is able to open more of these travel centers eventually.
I drive I-44 all the time. Maybe I'll see one of his trucks on my way to work one day. I'll certainly honk and wave with a smile on my face.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Can you say "Please sue us"?
I just found this story from Fox News about a man in Tampa, Florida, who was not allowed to cash a check at Bank of America. The reason was failure to provide a thumbprint. The thing is, this man was born without arms, and has never has a thumb to print.
He presented a check to cash, which was from his wife on a account that she has there, to a teller at a Bank of America in Tampa. The teller refused, acknowledging that Steve Valdez physically could not provide the required thumbprint and asked a supervisor what to do. The supervisor also refused to cash the check, citing company policy. The supervisor told Valdez if he wanted the cash, either his wife needed to come to the bank or he could open an account with the check. All this even after Valdez had provided two different photo IDs. According to Valdez, the bank remained firm when reminded of the Americans with Disabilites Act and the potential problems that could result from their refusal.
Well, Valdez never was allowed to cash the check, although he did recieve a phone call days later from a regional manager with an apology.
My first thought when I read the headline was, "Seriously, how can they do that to an armless man? Are they asking for a lawsuit?"
Then I read the entire article and my thoughts are pretty much the same after reading.
I work in a bank and I can't imagine, in a million years, not cashing this check. He provided more than sufficient photo ID and it's blatantly obvious that he is unable to provide the print as ID. Really, why would they need it anyway. He was born armless. What do they hope to find in their database to compare to?
I will say that we don't require fingerprints at the bank where I work but this would not have happened even if we did. I actually asked a friend of mine who does work in a bank where they use fingerprinting for identification and she asked her supervisor if they would have turned him away. Her answer? Absolutely not. The TWO different forms of photo ID were plenty, given the circumstances.
I really hope that Bank of America has enough of that bailout money left to pay for the lawsuits that this kind of customer service is going to bring about.
He presented a check to cash, which was from his wife on a account that she has there, to a teller at a Bank of America in Tampa. The teller refused, acknowledging that Steve Valdez physically could not provide the required thumbprint and asked a supervisor what to do. The supervisor also refused to cash the check, citing company policy. The supervisor told Valdez if he wanted the cash, either his wife needed to come to the bank or he could open an account with the check. All this even after Valdez had provided two different photo IDs. According to Valdez, the bank remained firm when reminded of the Americans with Disabilites Act and the potential problems that could result from their refusal.
Well, Valdez never was allowed to cash the check, although he did recieve a phone call days later from a regional manager with an apology.
My first thought when I read the headline was, "Seriously, how can they do that to an armless man? Are they asking for a lawsuit?"
Then I read the entire article and my thoughts are pretty much the same after reading.
I work in a bank and I can't imagine, in a million years, not cashing this check. He provided more than sufficient photo ID and it's blatantly obvious that he is unable to provide the print as ID. Really, why would they need it anyway. He was born armless. What do they hope to find in their database to compare to?
I will say that we don't require fingerprints at the bank where I work but this would not have happened even if we did. I actually asked a friend of mine who does work in a bank where they use fingerprinting for identification and she asked her supervisor if they would have turned him away. Her answer? Absolutely not. The TWO different forms of photo ID were plenty, given the circumstances.
I really hope that Bank of America has enough of that bailout money left to pay for the lawsuits that this kind of customer service is going to bring about.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Was she living under a rock for 40 years?
According to a recent story by Fox News, a jury awarded $13.8 million to the daughter of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer in February of 2003. The deceased, Betty Bullock, started smoking in 1956 when she was 17 years old and used a couple of different brands of cigarettes, both manufactured by Phillip Morris. Bullock's daughter, Jodie, originally sued the company in 2001, accusing them of fraud and liablity. A judge ordered Phillip Morris to pay $28 million in that instance. After the 2nd District Court of Appeals reversed that decision in 2008, Jodie sued again and was just awarded $13.8 million.
What I don't understand about this story is why on earth is it not Betty Bullock's own fault that she died of lung cancer and why does the company have to pay her daughter- not even the actual "victim" here- any damages at all? From what I've been able to find out, the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act was passed by Congress in 1965, requiring that all cigarette packages carry a warning about the possible health risks involved. According to the Fox News article, Betty started smoking when she was 17, which would have been in 1956. Even if the act wasn't passed until 1965, it seems to me that she had a good 40 years to think about putting down the cigarettes.
I want to make it clear that I don't in any way condone some of the tactics and advertising used by these tobacco companies and I do think there are definitely situations in which they are the guilty party. This just doesn't really seem like one of those situations though. Bullock had ample warning about the dangers of what she was doing every time she purchased a new pack if cigarettes, at least from 1965 until the day she died.
What I don't understand about this story is why on earth is it not Betty Bullock's own fault that she died of lung cancer and why does the company have to pay her daughter- not even the actual "victim" here- any damages at all? From what I've been able to find out, the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act was passed by Congress in 1965, requiring that all cigarette packages carry a warning about the possible health risks involved. According to the Fox News article, Betty started smoking when she was 17, which would have been in 1956. Even if the act wasn't passed until 1965, it seems to me that she had a good 40 years to think about putting down the cigarettes.
I want to make it clear that I don't in any way condone some of the tactics and advertising used by these tobacco companies and I do think there are definitely situations in which they are the guilty party. This just doesn't really seem like one of those situations though. Bullock had ample warning about the dangers of what she was doing every time she purchased a new pack if cigarettes, at least from 1965 until the day she died.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
We're not all reading the same Bible
I fail to understand how anyone who reads and teaches from the same Bible I'm familiar with can possibly come to the conclusion to allow open, sexually active homosexuals to be members of the clergy of their church.
In a Fox News article from Friday, I learned that leaders of the nation's largest Lutheran church, with around 4.7 million members, voted to allow gays and lesbians who are sexually active and in what they call "committed relationships" to serve as clergy. Since the vote there has been much discussion on how this will affect individual congregations, who are not going to be made to enforce this new rule, but will probably be pressured nonetheless. There is also a lot of debate going on about whether this is a step forward for the Lutheran church or if it will divide the church as a whole and individual congregations as well.
I don't know what is more disturbing to me, this new rule or that, from what I gather from reading a few different articles, that homosexuals have been serving as clergy for some time now as long as they keep it under wraps! It is extremely sad to me that men in leadership positions such as these can read and teach from the same text that I and millions of other Christians do and come to a conclusion that they've made the right decision. This is yet another example of man becoming so jaded by the world we live in that he would put his faith in the modern secular world and discard what God tells us to be true as being old and out-dated. It's really just too frustrating for words.
In a Fox News article from Friday, I learned that leaders of the nation's largest Lutheran church, with around 4.7 million members, voted to allow gays and lesbians who are sexually active and in what they call "committed relationships" to serve as clergy. Since the vote there has been much discussion on how this will affect individual congregations, who are not going to be made to enforce this new rule, but will probably be pressured nonetheless. There is also a lot of debate going on about whether this is a step forward for the Lutheran church or if it will divide the church as a whole and individual congregations as well.
I don't know what is more disturbing to me, this new rule or that, from what I gather from reading a few different articles, that homosexuals have been serving as clergy for some time now as long as they keep it under wraps! It is extremely sad to me that men in leadership positions such as these can read and teach from the same text that I and millions of other Christians do and come to a conclusion that they've made the right decision. This is yet another example of man becoming so jaded by the world we live in that he would put his faith in the modern secular world and discard what God tells us to be true as being old and out-dated. It's really just too frustrating for words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
