In a editorial to the DNJ a Mr. Haas asks a few questions. He seems to be very certain of the answers but I am just a lowly racist and religious bigot. I am sure I am not worthy even to attempt to answer his questions but I will try. In his first question he asks "Is there anything more un-American than a mosque protester? Haas then answers his own question with a resounding "nope". I would say most definitely that it is very American to speak out against a mosque. Believe it or not we have a 1st Amendment that pretty much protects all speech, with the possible exception of yelling fire in a crowded theater. You know that 1st Amendment Mr. Haas, the same one that liberals tout but try to restrict with political correctness. Or the same amendment that radical Muslims hide behind in this country to spread their doctrine of Sharia law that restricts our freedom of speech. Mr. Haas says that Islam is a religion and I have no doubt that it is but it is a religion that regularly abuses women, homosexuals, Christians and it is anti-Jewish. Under Sharia law it demands obedience to that law from "people of the Book", Christians and Jews. All others are required to convert or die. Islam is united in it's hatred of Israel and hopes for their total destruction. Their goals are the same goals as Hitler. Haj Amin al Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem helped Hitler organize SS Units in World War II. The left condemns Hitler but supports Islam and they call us racist. Lets not forget the genocide by the Ottoman Empire of 1.5 million Armenian Christians from 1915 until 1918 out of an estimated 2 million Armenians. I would hope that real Americans would have legitimate concerns about this religion moving into our midst. When the Buddhists built their temple on Old Nashville Highway back in the 1970's and 80's I don't recall any protests. A few idiots committed some vandalism but I and most other people in Rutherford County welcomed them because they are a peaceful religion. So my answer is "yep" real Americans can and absolutely should protest a mosque.
Second question, "Is there anything more stupid than a mosque protester? I will answer this question with a question. "Is there anyone more un-informed, narrow minded, and condescending as a liberal"? Nope! Third Question, "Is there anything more mendacious than a mosque protester"? I love these big words that he uses. They make him sound so smart. My answer is this. If I am wrong, prove me wrong.If overwhelmed with the evidence I am capable of changing my mind. Fourth question- Is there anything more unfriendly than a mosque protester? I don't know I have never met one. Have you Mr. Haas? I haven't protested the mosque myself but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't. Mr. Haas, have you ever sat down with these people and tried to have an exchange of ideas, or enjoyed a meal with them, or had a drink with them? Or is this beneath you? Fifth question- Is there anything more racist than a mosque protester? I will refer you to my answer for question four. Since there are Muslims of all races, including white people, what race are you referring to? Did you get bent out of shape when Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and Robert Byrd made racist comments, which they have. The history of the Democratic Party in this country is racist, just check the history books.
Sixth question- This one really cracks me up. I love you guys, you are so funny. "Is there anything more dangerous than a mosque protester"? This is a joke, right? You are seriously saying that everyone that protests against a mosque is capable of flying a plane full of innocent passengers into a building. Capable of walking into a crowded area with a bomb strapped to themselves and blowing people to smithereens or walking into a gun free zone and blowing away people with an AK-47, while shouting Allah hu akbar. Seriously, you are comparing mosque protesters with these people? Now lets move on to a more serious question. Seventh question- Is there anything less Christian than a mosque protester? Again, I refer you to my answer to question four. Until you get to know these people for who they are I also refer you to Matthew 7-1. Judge not that ye be not judged.
You finished your letter with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. I will also quote Lincoln. "At what point shall we expect the approach of danger. By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow. Never!!! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with the treasure of the earth, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be it's author and finisher. As a nation of free men we must live through all time or die by suicide.
|Haj Amin al Husseini meeting Himmler|
Dear Mr. Segroves
Well, it has been a while since we had a conversation, though it looks like you have not learned very much in the meantime. Oh well, some just have flatter learning curves than others. Once again, I am going to have to show you where you err, yet as we know repetition is the mother of all learning.
At the beginning of your letter you note that Islam "regularly abuses women, homosexuals, Christianity, and is anti-Jewish. Don't know if you are aware, but you just pretty much described a certain history of Christianity with this as well. And there are varying degrees here- Islam historically way more tolerant of Judaism than Christianity (remember Christianity did bring us anti-Semitism, the Jewish martyrdom of the First Crusaders and others, ethnic cleansing, ghetto's, the Inquisition, pogroms, and eventually the Holocaust---the vast majority of the perpetrators were nominally Christian and identified themselves as such, one of the Einsatzgruppen commanders was even a Lutheran theologian). And the current wave of Muslim anti-Semitism is way more political and economic rather than religious, centering on the economics of Jewish settlement (curiously allowed and encouraged by the Ottoman Turks) and then the politics of the state of Israel (in that way then most assuredly Islam does not have the same goals as Hitler).
MY ANSWER: I will refer to you as Dr. Haas since you have made a point of emphasizing your credentials in this letter and your previous letter. You refer to Christianity as being worse than Islam. The left is good at using moral equivalency and relativism in their arguments. If taken at face value you seem to be making a good point. However I am aware that you are comparing apples and oranges. I realize that Christianity has no validity in your world but Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee. That thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", What this tells me as a Christian is that God's true church has always existed and will never be destroyed. The church is a body of believers that is a remnant. After Christ's crucifixion his true believers were persecuted and are still persecuted today. At first it was the pagan Roman Empire persecuting them. When pseudo Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the guise of the papacy and the Catholic Church, then they simply took over from the pagans becoming the persecutor of God's true church. The remnant if you will. Am I saying that individual Catholics are not Christian and not part of this remnant, absolutely not. I am referring to the theocracy that you are referring to that persecuted Jews, Muslims, supposed heretics which were the Christian remnant many times, and the intelligentsia of that day. As far as there being supposed Christians in the Einsatsgruppen why should this surprise me. You can find some of the most evil people in the Church. The Apostle Paul who considered himself a devout Jew was a murderer before his conversion. The Bible talks about the "Book of Life" and the Lambs Book of Life" There are many professed Christians in the Book of Life but the Lambs Book of Life will only contain the names of real Christians. I am opposed to Islam because it's primary goal is four things. A worldwide caliphate, a caliph, Sharia Law and Jihad. These goals were stated in a 1991 memorandum called an "Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Muslim Brotherhood In North America" This is the political Islam that you speak of. In my first letter to you I said the following: As for the pseudo Christian theocracies of the Middle Ages, they are a good example of why Islam should be watched very carefully today. We want to avoid another theocracy. The thing that separates true Christians from all other religions is what Christ said. "My kingdom is not of this world". Real Christianity is based on Gods love. Love is the very essence of God's character. He would never compel a man to worship him against their will. So why should men try to force people to worship God against their will? God does not condone the oppression and terror committed in his name. Focus Dr. Haas.
Moreover, Islam is not united in it's hatred of Israel; just as Islam is not united politically, socially or even religiously. And certainly Islam and Muslims disagree on the applicability of Sharia law, with some countries having just a light smattering of it, if at all. And Sharia law itself has become way more tolerant over the years regarding other religions in their midst---it is not necessarily convert or die for those people not of the book (lots of Muslim conversions are fairly peaceful and willing) Like the mosque protestors you presume that a small, even fringe, element speaks for and represents Islam as a whole. Again, most assuredly not. As far as the grand Mufti goes, well during World War II all sorts of people supported Hitler and his anti-Jewish policies for various reasons ( and I doubt if he did much along the lines of SS recruitment, as the Germans were pretty successful in that on their own). And of course let us not forget the Armenian massacre, but also understand its political context--- in the midst of a World War which was putting pressure on the state which also had troubles with Armenian nationalism-- again a way more political event than religious.
MY ANSWER: Dr. Haas the following is word for word from my first letter to you. Because of military conquest of Islamic countries and colonialism there is much variance from country to country today. In countries like Saudi-Arabia and Iran, Christian Bibles are forbidden. They are routinely confiscated and burned. All outward signs of Christian worship are not allowed. Just ask our military how they were treated in Saudi-Arabia during Desert Shield and Desert Storm. There are secular countries like Turkey, where secularism is enforced by the Turkish military but even they are becoming more fundamentalist. Islam is no more monolithic than Communism is. The Communist ideology looks toward the ultimate rule of the proletariat without national borders. Nationalism has always plagued Communist states. It was the appeal to nationalism by Stalin that helped to defeat the Germans in World War II. Remember the Sino-Soviet conflicts of the 1960's. Islam has it's own problems in this regard, but the dream of Islam from the get go has been to unite the world under one giant Caliphate, living blissfully under Sharia law. This is the same goal shared by the terrorists. So I am aware that Islam is not monolithic. Focus Dr. Haas.
Your statement of (lots of Muslim conversions are fairly peaceful and willing) didn't sound very convincing to me. Last but not least you need to read up on the Grand Mufti a little more. And I guess that because a holocaust happens in wartime that makes it more acceptable. Do you see the Jewish holocaust that way?
Now I see your strategy here---how dare a supposed liberal support a supposedly illiberal religion. Well it is a religion ( as you acknowledged) and by American law and custom allowed to be freely practiced regardless what I or others think. I can disagree with it and not join, but that is about as far as I can go. Sort of like Christianity--- my variant is at some considerable odds with other variants, but I have no problem with you worshipping your Christ in your way, regardless how wrong that is. Knock yourself out. And our Founding fathers were pretty much agreed with that---hence their view of religion that is very much a private affair and all should have freedom of that conscience with no public pressure at all. Did though appreciate your coming out of the closet here to defend homosexual rights, very liberal of you.
MY ANSWER: You really expose your anti-Christian bias here but you are free to believe however you want to believe. However you also expose your ignorance of the Founding fathers. Some of the Founders were Deists, Unitarian and not very religious but even these appreciated the value of religion in American society. There have been more lies told about Jefferson by the political left than just about anybody. I believed the liberal garbage that I was taught in secondary schools and college until about twenty years ago. As a historian you should know the truth about the 1st Amendment but obviously you have bought into the lies. Thomas Jefferson established church services in the capital building at the beginning of his first term and never missed a service for eight years. This doesn't sound like a Godless individual to me. The following is what I wrote in my first letter. Like most people today, I was taught that the First Amendment was intended to be "religion neutral". In other words, the Hugo Black interpretation of the First Amendment. Although I was raised by a Christian mother, I supported the 1963 Supreme Court decision to ban prayer from public schools. I believed this way until I read a book in my late forties that challenged my beliefs. The book was called "Let Us Pray" by William Murray. Murray is the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the famous atheist who used William to bring about the decision banning school prayer on June 17, 1963. He gives a scholarly interpretation of the real meaning of the First Amendment and the thoughts of the framers on religious liberty. As I am sure you know, or should know, the Bill of Rights dictates what the federal government cannot do. It does not say what it can do. Secondly, the language of the First Amendment is very clear. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The First Amendment protects the states and the people from the intervention of the federal government in matters of religion.
When Jefferson wrote his famous "Wall of Separation" letter, that has been so vastly misinterpreted over the years, to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he was responding to their request, that as President he should declare a day of fasting and thanksgiving. Jefferson's reply was saying, and correctly so, that there was a "Wall of Separation" between the federal government and the state governments. He could not require the individual states to follow an edict imposed by the federal government on something as simple as a day of fasting and thanksgiving. Andrew Jackson would face the same request during his administration and he would reply in the same manner as Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. Third, there is no doubt that Jefferson and Madison believed that all religions had a right to worship as they pleased. This included the Pagan, the Jew, and the Muslim. They also believed that man had a right to practice no religion. My views are in line with Jefferson and Madison. It is probably safe to say that the majority of Americans at that time were not as open minded as Jefferson and Madison. Both, however, were advocates of states rights. They believed in the Tenth Amendment as much as they believed in the First. Jefferson and Madison fought to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia. They were successful with the passage of the Declaration of Rights in 1776. This was one of the three accomplishments that Jefferson was the most proud of and he had it etched on his tombstone. He was also proud of his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and of his founding of the University of Virginia. Both Madison and Jefferson would never dictate to the other states how they should worship. If an individual state wanted a state religion, or any public displays of religion, such as prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, or no religion displayed at all, that was their business. If Tennessee does not want mosques to be built it is up to the people of Tennessee regardless of how you or I feel about it. Madison and Jefferson would not have agreed with the federal governments intervention into how the states have conducted religious matters over the last one hundred years.
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment came out of the progressive movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's. The progressives have been so successful in promoting this interpretation that far too many Americans believe it. Hugo Black had an ulterior motive for issuing his ruling that effectively altered American history. He was a former Klansman and had an anti-Catholic bias. I am not a believer in the progressive concept that the Constitution is a living document that can be changed at the whim of a judge, president, or legislator. I believe in the amendment process. I am a constructionist in interpreting the Constitution. There are implied powers but in my view we live under the tyranny of a court system out of control. Unless we can find a way to bring them under control, there is not much hope for the future of this republic. Focus Dr. Haas.
And yes, if Muslim countries wish to discriminate against Christianity, they can. They do not live under the U.S. Constitution, and are not bound by it's rules. We have a rulebook though that we have to play by---regardless what others do in their countries (which is why we are such a gun nut nation). It is not reciprocal and does not have to be, Other countries have their own rules, and we cannot and should not use that fact then to justify discrimination against those of them who come to us, But if others come to our country, they then likewise have to play by our rulebook (which is why there is nothing to fear from Sharia---if formal state-supported and authorized prayer in school is unconstitional then there is no chance of anything illegal and unconstitutional in Sharia ever getting established in America). Have you no faith in the U.S. Constitution? And of course local Muslims have been good Americans and immigrants and neighbors.
So for question one, although you are all over the map on this you are also quite wrong. And it is then un-American to protest a mosque (as that strikes at the heart of what our rulebook says and what custom says is who we are---you know the four freedoms, freedom of worship).
MY ANSWER: Yes Dr. Haas I stated very clearly that most Muslim countries are intolerant. And yes I am well aware that we live under a Constitution. A Constitution that the left regularly ignores. I was simply pointing out, and I am sure that you understood exactly what I was saying, that political Islam is using our Constitution against us to advance their poisonous agenda. Furthermore I have plenty of faith in our Constitution. It is radical presidents like Obama, radical congressmen, radical politicians on the local level, radical media, radical academia, radical judges and radical school administrators that I don't trust. The left is at war with Christianity in this country and we regularly see instances where Islam and other religions are promoted and tolerated by teachers involving students in role playing and field trips to mosques while Christianity is mocked and discouraged. Yes, most Muslims have been good neighbors. Problem is it is hard to tell the wheat from the tares. Did though appreciate your coming out of the closet here to defend the Constitution, very conservative of you.
You never addressed the second question. You made a facile criticism of my position based on what you think I am rather than what I am saying. Do be careful: never for instance mistake the knowledge of an expert who is right for condescension. Always then be wary of disagreeing with one. When a plumber or electrician or carpenter tells you something about home improvement, you ought to pay attention and even reconsider your own ideas and presuppositions. And do remember that liberal just means the truth that conservatives do not want to address.
MY ANSWER: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. Proverbs 16:18
You never addressed the third question either. All you could come up with is a fatuous insult about word usage. But note, you did learn a new word in the process so that is to the good: and I just gave you another---one that both Eisenhower and Patton knew in December 1944. Not only do I sound smart, but I am--and that was before the PhD.
MY ANSWER: Ugh!! Neanderthal man understand big word.
For the fourth question, of course I have met them--on the square amongst other places and exchanges. I know who they are exactly.
MY ANSWER: I would have loved to be a fly on the wall on that one.
For the fifth question just as anti-Semitism is a form of racism so to then is anti-Islamic beliefs and behaviors, especially since so many Muslims are non-white and from non-American, non-Western cultures. And once again, although you are wandering, of course I get bent out of shape at racist comments by anyone. Though I don't think Bill or Hillary have made any--especially since Bill is seen as the first black president. As for Joe Biden, yea, a stupid comment though at a certain level with him you always wonder exactly what is he talking about or meaning. And as far as Robert Byrd, yeah I am just shocked that a southern Democrat of the mid to late twentieth century would have had a racist background. Yeah, just shocked. But your examples are just irrelevant to the argument---remember focus, focus.
MY ANSWER: Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis." -Senator Hillary Clinton
Blacks and Hispanics are "too busy eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write." -- Mike Wallace, CBS News. Source: Newsmax
You f*cking Jew b@stard." -- Hillary Clinton to political operative Paul Fray. This was revealed in "State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton" and has been verified by Paul Fray and three witnesses.
"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time." -- Former Klansman and US Senator Robert Byrd, a man who was referred to by many Democrats as the "conscience of the Senate" in March of 2001
"White folks was in caves while we was building empires... We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it." -- Rev. Al Sharpton in a 1994 speech at Kean College, NJ, cited in "Democrats Do the Dumbest Things
Seems like I detected what you guys refer to as homophobia there.
Finally remarks from the first black president Bill Clinton about Barack Obama: "this guy would have been carrying our bags" Mr Clinton allegedly made the racially insensitive remark to Senator Ted Kennedy as he tried to convince the liberal to endorse his wife, Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama's rival, for the Democratic nomination, according to The New Yorker
"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee," Mr Clinton was quoted as saying in Game Change, by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin.
I can go on all day with this but I won't. The reason you don't hear about these remarks is because Democrats get a pass in the media and Republicans and conservatives don't. Robert Byrd got a pass on his past as did George Wallace but we were constantly reminded of Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms past. Of course we know the fate of Trent Lott. Maybe you think it is irrelevant but I think it is hypocritical to ignore the real racism of those on the left.
For the sixth question, once again you are confusing largely political acts with purely religious acts. And oh yeah, considering the vandalism and arson at the Mosque, mosque protestors are dangerous, and their unfounded and inflammatory rhetoric just does not help.
Let me remind you of what you said in your letter to the editor. "Is there anything more dangerous than a mosque protester"? According to you they were not just dangerous, they were more dangerous than anything or anybody. At least that is how I interpreted it. These radical Muslims may be acting politically but they are doing it in the name of Allah. Lets compare anything the protestors might have said with the following. Every day they would go to school and they would put American flags in front of these little babies. Muslim babies! "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands..." Bullshit!
Would I defend this country? You know what this country is? A garbage can.
Quotes from SIRAJ WAHHAJ of the AMERICAN MUSLIM COUNCIL, a front for the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, who was the first Muslim cleric to open congress with a prayer in 1991. A few idiots vandalize construction equipment and you automatically assume the protesters did it. What happened to the benefit of the doubt that you give Muslims but you refuse to extend to mosque protesters.
For the seventh question, oh yeah since I know them I can judge them--no problem.
I won't even dignify this answer with a response.
And lastly you end with a Lincoln quote, but it misfires. He is actually talking about mosque protestors. So in conclusion while you are wrong on all points you are at least right in proving my contention. So like I did with Millie Evans, thanks.
No, he was really talking about the threat that slavery posed to our nation but it also applies to the useful idiots that promote the ideas that weaken our nation from within by dividing the American people from out of many one (E Pluribus Unum) to out of one, many (political correctness). The irresponsible policies that not only allow but encourage people who do not have our interests at heart, do not want to assimilate and are outright criminals into this country just so a certain political party can benefit from their vote. And you can throw class envy and race baiting into the mix. You encourage name calling rather than legitimate debate. We are taxing and spending our way to oblivion. I could name a whole lists of things that so-called progressives are guilty of but I don't have the space. That is what Lincoln was really talking about. We are allowing ourselves to be destroyed from within. Dr. Haas I really don't care what people like you think about me. People ask me if I ever read the comments in response to my editorials and I tell them no. I write my articles because I believe with all my heart that there are way more people out there that agree with me than disagree. I want them to know that they are not alone and that maybe I can put into words what they would like to say but can't. You and others like you are bullies. Obama is a bully, the race merchants like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are bullies. The gay rights leaders are bullies. The feminists, politicians, the media and any other leftist you want to throw in there. You bully us by throwing out words like racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe and every kind of slur you can throw at us in an effort to end legitimate debate. This tactic will not work with me. I stand up to bullies unlike the generation your kind are trying to mold into wimps with your anti-bullying campaign. You will not shut me up because I am secure in what I believe and elitists like yourself do not intimidate me. You reveal a lot when you call the mosque protesters the most dangerous of all people because what you are really saying is that you don't really care all that much about the Muslims. You just hate conservatives, especially Christian conservatives more than you hate Muslims. Much like Churchill when he was asked how he could ally himself with Hitler, he replied "I would ally with the devil himself in order to defeat Hitler" We are Hitler to you. If you really have met the mosque protesters, like you say you have, then I really don't trust your appraisal of them. I was a protester against the Tennessee State income tax in 1999 and 2000. I remember how the media and the left portrayed us then. So until I meet some mosque protesters I will withhold judgement. Unlike you I am not an expert on anything because the more educated I become the more I realize how little that I really know. I believe that is a characteristic of a truly educated person and a sign of wisdom when they comes to that realization. My university has been the school of hard knocks and I am a proud and grateful graduate. Your side is winning the battle handily right now because our side has no leadership. Only corrupt politicians who could care less about this country. The power to put your side in it's proper place resides with the people. All we lack is principled leaders. If we had them we could easily put you in your place because we outnumber you. In other words shut up and sit down, the adults are in charge now. Phil Robertson and Chick Filet have been a perfect example of what can be done when principled people stand their ground. I am an evil, evil man and if you don't believe me just ask my wife but my mother taught me to love everyone because she worshiped a Jesus that loves even you Dr. Haas and every Muslim on the face of the earth. That Jesus that you deride loves you and died a horrible death to offer you the opportunity of salvation. So if he loves you I've got to love you too. Don't bother responding to this letter. I issued you a challenge to overwhelm me with evidence that could possibly change my mind. Instead you used the same tired old arguments that I have heard hundreds of times from your side. Hopefully we can just agree to disagree. Dr. Haas I really do wish you well.