Can there be peace with Muslims? Look to the Qur’an for answers. As taken from the Islamic website, Islamonline:
- “If he (Messenger) were to invent any saying in Our Name, We should certainly have seized him by the right hand and We should then have surely cut off the artery of his heart"
- “Say; It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it (the revelation). I follow naught but what is revealed unto me"
[Qur'an 10:15 ]
- “No falsehood can approach it from the front, nor from the rear (i.e. neither directly nor indirectly). It is sent-down from Allah the All-Wise, the All-Praiseworthy.”
- “We indeed have sent down the recital (the Qur’an) and indeed are its Protectors (from any interference).”
- “In what way (We have revealed it), that We may make your heart firm thereby; and We have dictated it in stages.”
So we can read by the above verses how impossible it would be for anyone, not even Muhammad (Messenger)*, to have changed the words or the meanings of them, as they were given to him by Allah and were in no way his own words. Therefore, as stated in the above verses, since Allah gave the words, anyone who changes the meaning of them is subject to immediate and violent death, so typical of Allah’s ways, the ways of Islam. To change the words of Allah and the meaning of his message is to commit the offense of shirk, which has no forgiveness. We can conclude then that anyone who strays from the words of the Qur’an and tries to add his own touch or meaning to the words of Allah will become the victim of Islamic justice and it’s ways according to Allah.
Verse 10:15 makes it pretty plain that no one today can alter the meaning of the words of the Qur’an, even if it is to make it a nicer kind of religion, more suitable for practicing in a civilized society.
It can be changed neither in the past nor in the future as is made plain by verse 41:42.
Verse 15:9 states plainly that reinterpretation of the Qur’an is guarded against by Allah.
*To call Muhammad “Messenger” is a clear indication that he, Muhammad is not to have, nor is he to take, any responsibility for any of the content or meaning of the message.
The following is also from the same islamonline.net website, appearing directly below the above cited texts, intended for western eyes so as to justify Islam in light of the so-called “Satanic verses” for which Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death by the revered Islamic ruler, Ayatollah Khomeini:
It is seen from the above that the Qur’an repeatedly assures that Allah has protected it against any possibility of being tampered with directly or indirectly, that it is not for the Prophet to change it or add to it anything.
If he had done so, Allah’s severe punishment would inevitably and irresistibly have befallen him. These clear and positive statements directly contradict the story, which says that the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, of his own accord or being deceived by Satan introduced something into the text of
revelation. Not only that. The alleged interpolation violated the fundamental teaching of the Qur’an – monotheism (Tauhid) and thus constituted the offence of shirk* which Allah warns elsewhere in the Qur’an that He shall under no circumstances forgive.
[TIMe's note: As we read that Allah would surely have killed anyone that tried to change the meaning of his message, then we can safely assume, as regards Muslims' claims that Islam is peaceful towards other religions and peoples, i.e. Jews and Christians, that Allah is asleep, impotent or non-existent since the idea of peace with other peoples is clearly against the teachings of the Qur'an. Which is not to say that the hatred that is bred into the hearts of Muslims is dead. To the contrary it is very much alive. Look to how they are behaving in the world community today and you can easily see that they are intent on eliminating the world's other inhabitants. From what we see of Muslim behavior of late, it would appear that they intend to do so quite soon.]
- The Qur'an makes mention of some of the more grave sins—covetousness, pride, envy, extravagance, niggardliness, ostentation, cheating, suspicion, slander, theft, etc.; and doctors of the law have compiled, lists of these "great" sins.
It is significant that *the offence of shirk invariably heads these lists. But, for the rest, popular Muslim literature bears eloquent testimony to the fact that the interminable regulations about things “allowed“ and “forbidden“ weigh like a yoke on the necks of the common people.
The mercy of God is further impaired by the Islamic doctrine of fate. The Qur'an asserts that the fate of man, whatever happens, has been fixed by inevitable decrees. But while this doctrine is often urged, and quite legitimately, as a reason for resignation and patience, it is not by any means confined to such purposes. In the Qur’an it is constantly obtruded in its crudest form, thus:
- "Allah will mislead whom He pleaseth, and. whom He pleaseth He will place upon the straight path." (Surah 6: 39)
- “And whoso willeth, taketh the way to his Lord. But will it ye shall not, unless Allah will it,” (Surah 76:29-30)
- “Whom Allah causeth to err, no guide shall there be for him,” (Surah 13:33)
- “Every man's fate have We fastened about his neck," (Surah 17:14)
And perhaps most tellingly as to why there can never be peace with Muslims:
“Had thy God pleased He would have made mankind of one religion; but those only to whom thy Lord hath granted mercy will cease to differ. And unto this hath He created them for the word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled, ‘I will fill hell with Jinn and men'" (Surah 11:120')
According to Mohammed, it is clearly Allah’s intention to fill Hell. It is his stated purpose. He therefore, according to the beliefs of Muslims, deliberately keeps men at odds on the foundations of differing religious beliefs. To do so is to his purpose and pleasure. Allah has said so himself. Anyone who tries to change these words is subject to death. Therefore there can never be peace with Muslims within a civilized society. Islam, by definition of the Qur’an, is a system by which Allah fills Hell with men by keeping them at odds by design. A good Muslim would never have peaceful existence in his heart as it is not in the heart of his god. He is not taught to seek peace except with other Muslims, and therefore does not seek it with non-Muslims. His purpose, if he truly serves Allah, is to help to fulfill the will of Allah which, as Allah has said, is to fill Hell with men. A good Muslim will do all in his power to send men to Hell. Witness the behavior and rhetoric of Muslims throughout the world today. The only “bad” Muslim is the one who does not help to fulfill the will of Allah which is, as stated by Allah and given to Muslims by his prophet, to fill Hell with men. When a Muslim says he wants peace he is telling you he wants you to lay down your arms and let him fulfill the will of Allah.
There can be no peace in the world as long as the world has both Islam and non-Muslims together.
But this is certainly not a fresh observation. The United States of America was founded by men who thought men should be free. Islam holds men as captive with no respect for love or freedom. One of our founding fathers clearly saw this and felt compelled to write about it.
According to John Quincy Adams:
"....On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)"John Quincy Adams on Islam....."Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)""Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men."
--John Quincy AdamsSo, why can there never be peace with Muslims?
- "THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE" J.Q. Adams
- "The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men." J.Q. Adams
And, from an interview with Fr. Fessio on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, the transcript of which is linked on his blogsite.
"In the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it,..."
The following link takes you to a segment of that interview:
Irate Muslims Stage New Protests
From the press:
[After Friday prayers, another Muslim coalition, the Islamic Community Forum, issued a statement at one of Jakarta's most prominent mosques demanding the death penalty for the cartoonists who drew the caricatures and others involved in their publication. [And we're supposed to take them seriously, I wonder. The world is supposed to respect such attempts at bullying?]
In Malaysia, about 60 members of the main opposition party, the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, rallied Friday outside the Danish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, calling for the destruction of enemies and demanding an apology for the publication of the cartoons. The protest ended without violence.]
From Forbes news service:
"... the leader of the Palestinian group Hamas called the cartoons "an unforgivable insult" that merited punishment by death." [Video/internet beheading, perhaps?]
"Mahmoud Zahar, leader of the militant Palestinian group Hamas, told the Italian daily Il Giornale the cartoonists should be punished by death. We should have killed all those who offend the Prophet and instead here we are, protesting peacefully." he said. [TIMe notes: Clearly, Hamas regrets being peaceful towards those that they do not like. Israel and the world should take notice. This is the true spirit of Islam. This is the true Muslim way.]
This is not religion. This is politics. This is hatred. This is a culture and system of death whose behavior is clear indication of how superior they think they are and how meaningless and of no value other human beings are. As we in the western world grow to fear them by virtue of their numbers and their willingness to vent their hatred on others, we must ask ourselves can we... should we ... can we afford to tolerate this in the world?
Meanwhile, in the United States, the federal government through a grant for the arts, pays to have a cucifix immersed in a jar of urine. The federal government pays to have elephant dung smeared on a portait of the mother of Jesus. And when the mayor of New York, in protest, withholds city funding of such madness he is labeled as a fundamentalist whacko. US citizens pay to see such desecration. Yet we, the American people give way to the Islamic hatred and brutish mentality of hatred and killing which is Islam. Violence and demands for death are their only real response. To be sincerely Muslim is to resort to killing anyone that disagrees with the hate-filled tenets of Islam. Not because you want to personally but rather because Allah, as deliverd by his messnger, has decreed that all good Muslims kill all non-Muslims or be condemned to hell. The same Hell which Allah declared that he would fill with men.
Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was quoted as saying the cartoons -- one depicting the founder of Islam wearing a turban resembling a bomb --showed [that] press freedom should have its limits. Muslims consider it sacrilegious to produce a likeness of the Prophet Mohammad. CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. [and in a clear disregard for the merits of a free press]
"The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are an attack on our spiritual values. There should be a limit to press freedom," the state Anatolian news agency quoted Erdogan as telling French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy during talks in Ankara. [Are these people ready for atomic weapons?]
Does it ever occur to the Muslims, I wonder, that they are constantly attacking the spiritual values of other religions and peoples? They attack physically and then kill those that they disrespect. But then, by virtue(?) of the precepts and commands of the Qur'an, a good Muslim MUST kill all non-Muslims or he's better die trying. If he doesn't, he himself is condemned by Allah to die at the hands of other (better) good Muslims. So says the Qur'an. Clearly a good Muslim is one who is, by predestination, condemned to die either defending the otherwise (apparently) defenseless Mohammed or at the hands of other Muslims because he himself did not die trying to defend the otherwise defenseless Mohammed.
Clearly the principles on which America is founded do not sit well with Muslims. They've made it plain by their statements that they hate the idea of a free society that enjoys the exchange of ideas through a free press. For them the internet is not for the exchange of ideas. It it is for the broadcast of merciless beheadings of innocent civilians, which broadcasts are intended to intimidate those who think freedom and mercy are good things. Muslims do not agree that freedom and mercy are good things at all. It is clear that our freedoms and those of other western nations are an affront to the Musim ethic. Though Muslims do not protest all desecration as being wrong, never publicly condemning desecrations to other religious beliefs, they cannot accept that any society that has a free press can be allowed to continue unfettered when such continuance allows for that which offends them. The prime minister of Turkey thinks that he is within his rights to tell another soverign nation what they can do within their own countries' borders! It is clear that the followers of Islam believe they have the authority to rule the world. It is clear that Islam intends to rule the entire world. Every action, statement and behavior of Muslims in the world indicates what they believe. Witness Iran. They seem to believe that they can dictate to other countries the laws that the citizens of those countries must obey. Their intention to dominate is clear to all but the blind, willingly so afflicted or otherwise.
Why such a ban on images of the prophet?
If I were a wanted criminal (as Mohammed was in the early years of his rise to power through intimidation by murder, rape and pillage), I would not want my picture published on the TV, the newspaper or placed on a poster in the Post Office. Since the roots of Islam are in that thieving brigands declared themselves to be a religious group in order to avoid extermination, it would seem reasonable that Mohammed would also want to avoid having the general public become aware of what he looked like. It is logical that he would declare it to be a sacrilege to depict him by any means and in any medium. Though I have no way of knowing that this is the motive behind such a peculiar restriction (nor can it be shown that it wasn't), it is curious that the logic seems to fit. It is reminiscent of the scene in the Wizard of Oz wherein the Professor tells the pilgrims "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" for it is in obcurity and anonymity that all deceivers can thrive.
So it was that Mohammed was able to thrive; and it is in obscurity that all Muslims carry out their terror attacks on trusting civilian populations. Populations that trust the Muslim community and allow them to share in their country's riches because those same innocent civilians believe that Muslims truly do want to co-exist peacefully. Well, they do want to be free of restriction, but only to have enough time to annihilate the existing population. Only long enough to fulfill the will of Allah, according to the teachings of the Koran.
So it is based on this restriction against images of their prophet that good Muslims will offer their "blood and their souls" to enforce prohibitions against revealing any image of Mohammed. It would seem that Mohammed has, in the minds and hearts of good Muslims, replaced the god for whom he was merely a messenger, for it is the messenger that they defend with their lives and their blood.What do they offer to Allah himself? Since they have nothing more than their own lives and blood all that they could deliver beyond that would be the lives and blood of others. Truly these are not good candidates as neighbors. Ask the French, the Germans, the Australians, the Swedes, the Danes and the people of Indonesia. And of course, the Americans.
Governor, you can open your eyes now...
But then, I'm straining to view Islam through the eyes of justice and freedom as given me by the Judeo/Christian God of Justice and Mercy. That will never work any more than the idea of Muslims living in a Christian world or western society will work; it is only until there are no more Christians or Jews in the world will the Muslim population be at peace. That is, until they start killing each other.
How the French Problem Becomes the American Problem
From an email to me:
This has been around before, but is appropriate at this time to do some reflection on America's immigration and assimilation problems. Especially in light of what is currently happening in France. The French problem will become our problem--bank on it.
As the person who reported this says, it is chilling because it isn't a prediction of the future. It is something that is happening today, and not just in California.
[ We all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his
thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his Latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.
Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"
1. "Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
"The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: 'The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.' Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans."
2. Lamm went on: "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the minority dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
3. "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort.
The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: 'The apparent success of our own multiethnic and
multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.'"
4. Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."
5. "Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add an underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."
6. "My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of Victimology.' I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."
7. "My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other."
"A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods.
All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum", From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum,' we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."
8. "Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits -make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate."
"Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturist having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology, 'I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."
9. In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.
"There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.'
American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."
Governor Lamm, walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream. ]
When did WW III start?
From an email to me:
When WW-III Started****1979
This is not very long, but very informative You have to read the catalogue of events in this brief piece. Then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq, sit back, reset the snooze alarm, go back to sleep, and no one will ever bother us again. In case you missed it, World War III began in November 1979... that alarm has been ringing for years
US Navy Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. Here is a copy of the speech he gave last month. It is an accurate account of why we are in so much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed -AD) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to h it the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.
It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years.
America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.
America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.
In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.
Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in1988, killing 259.
Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.
The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.
In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever.. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.
This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.
If you believe in this please forward it to as many people as you can especially to the young people and all those who dozed off in history class and who seem so quick to protest such a necessary military action. If you don't believe it, just delete it and go back to sleep.
After one of the recipients queried "Should we deport all Muslims? Too many liberals in congress for that to happen!"
To which I replied:
As long as we allow ourselves to remain dependant on the only product that they have to sell… oil… then we will forever be at their mercy. As long as we continue to make our own personal desires our top priority then we will always lack the fortitude and determination to become independent of foreign oil. If we can focus on the fact that we put Americans on the moon after deciding that we would in only ten years, I wonder that we aren’t capable of developing a new energy source that frees us from the slavery to the nations of Muslim radicals and the products that we crave so desperately that we’re willing to die for them; we’re even willing to die out for them.
Islam is a philosophical creation that masquerades as a religion while remaining dedicated to the extermination of all Christians, Jews and all non-Muslims. The Koran is nothing more than an instruction manual filled with commands to kill anyone that defies world domination by the Muslims. If you look at all of their activity throughout the world, it is evident. But if we continue to think of Muslims as just another religion that must be allowed to assimilate into our society then we are truly doomed, as they have no intention of assimilating; annihilating is more what they have in mind. And we keep giving them all that they need to do it.
They procreate without limit. We abort. They contain and control their appetites. We have become slaves to ours. We are depopulating our country as they replace the missing American children with new born Islamic children who will be raised to hate and kill any non-Muslim. They will simply over run us by sheer numbers. They sell us the oil to satisfy our unending craving while they use the proceeds to destroy us. They are quite skilled at using our vices and weaknesses against us.
Mr. Ouimette is exactly right: if we continue to look the other way while “snoozing” through this one, we will wake up slaves in a foreign county… on former American soil.
Should we deport all Muslims? Not exactly. We should declare their “religion” to be a philosophy of violence and hatred determined by the edict of their sacred central scriptures and doctrine, the Koran, and accordingly outlaw it within US borders. Anyone not willing to publicly, under oath, disavow the murderous teachings of the Koran should be denied the privilege (not the right!) to remain on American soil.
"I feel confident that we will, as a nation, either outlaw Islam or be swallowed by it... most likely in a hateful and violent manner. "
Well, yes. Isn't that what the ultimate Battle is all about - Love vs. Hate? God vs. Satan? I know the Koran calls for chopping off the heads of the infidels -- it was the inference I intended.
Funny story. Last year we read, as a class, The Book of the Lion by Michael Cadnum. It's a young adult novel - historical fiction - about the Crusades. It is written from the perspective of a Christian boy who is forced to be a knight's assistant in order to pay for a crime he committed. The knight, of course, goes off to the Crusades and the boy has to go with him. (It's not a very good story, although it did win the Newberry Medal. It's well written, but it never goes anywhere.) Since it is written from the Christian boy's point-of-view, the Muslims are referred to as "infidels" throughout the book. (In much the same way a book about racial segregation has the Whites calling the Blacks the n-word.) I had three Muslim students in my classes, one of whom's (whose?) mother was involved in the PTO, etc.
About halfway through the novel she sent me a lengthy e-mail voicing her objections to the book because it called the Muslims "infidels." She told me, "We consider that term to be the most vile insult." Ha! She went on to say that in today's climate I should have been more careful about the book I chose for the students to read, blah, blah, blah. She cc'd the principal who immediately wrote and asked if "we" should consider not using it anymore (as though "we" had chosen it in the first place! Not!). However, since the book was selected by the School Board, I informed them both that the situation was out of my hands. Her son was in my Honor's class and according to her, a freakin' genius. In truth he was a spoiled brat, the first born son of wealthy parents, and of slightly-above-average intelligence. At the time he wasn't earning very good grades in my class due to his concern with socializing rather than focusing on his studies; however, his mother was under the impression that I gave out the grades rather than the fact that students earned them and frequently called to ask me why I "gave"
Can you imagine the nerve of her to impress upon me the fact that "infidel" is a vile insult when every other day in Iraq they were releasing videos announcing that they were going to chop off the head of another "infidel"?? At the end of the unit the kids conducted research about the Middle Ages and gave presentations to the class. Guess what Muslim boy did? He made a saber (cardboard painted metalic silver), wrote some Arabic words on it - "Allah is great" or something (in fact, he informed me that his mother had written the words) and brought it in to the classroom! He explained how it was used, the importance of it to a Muslim, etc.!!! Ha! What a hoot public school is!
The pleasure is all mine.
"...non-Muslim uses of death do not specify a gruesome (or any) method to bring about that death. "
When you find the time to "read to the end" The Koran does, in fact, specify the "striking at their necks" and "striking at their heads" as the method of killing; this was done is Indonesia by those very good Muslim boys to the Christian girls on their way to Christian school. Though we see what they did as being horrible, they do not. No Muslim can condemn it unless he/she simultaneously condemns the words of the Koran. OR... says that, though Muhammad said all of these things he was really waxing poetic. He wants to convert Christians therefore to "Strike off their heads" is not really what he meant. Rather perhaps to strike off the heads of their beliefs, though he never says anything remotely like that. He never spoke in parables and only gave clear, explicit, direct commands and cursed all who did not follow them literally as "hypocrites, worse than infidels". Throughout the entire book it is always the same as regards "the enemy"... "the people of the Book"... "those who call God the Messiah, the son of Mary".
Suggestions that this book (the Qur'an) is metaphorical are inventive creations of the modern day Muslim living in western society out of economic need, trying to assimilate a hateful, destructive, greedy, spiteful creed of a band of brigands (the origin of Islam) into a peace-loving Judeo/Christian world ( I hesitated to use the "slash" there! Too Islamic!) The inability of this hateful philosophy to assimilate throughout the peaceful world is demonstrated in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Australia in recent months of rioting, burning and bombing; over ten thousand cars burned by rioting Muslims demanding that the Christian world give them what they want. And what is that? That the Christian world simply goes away. The president of Iran was very direct a few weeks ago when he said as much about Israel... that it "should be wiped off the map".
Though your horrified panic at the opening of your reply fully justifies your endeavors in drama, I don't think that should be the response of the Judeo~Christian world. It might be the response of the Muslim world when governments refuse to accept threats in the name of religion as tolerable within their borders. Islam should be declared a philosphy of violence and hatred and not a religion; and then outlawed for its ability, willingness and mandate to promote violence and hatred by teaching and preaching violence and hatred. Which is what I called for in my first email in this string.
Now, seriously. . .
Yes, I read some of each, but I am very busy grading papers and reading several books for upcoming PSU classes, so I didn't read all of everything. "Death" can be a metaphor for many things. In Victorian novels it means "orgasim," although I highly doubt that is what the Muslims had in mind! :) We are called to die unto ourselves so that we might enter the Kingdom of Heaven. In other words, "death" in this scenario, could mean that our faulty Christian or Jewish beliefs are to die so that we can be reborn as Muslims. However, and as I have said before, I don't truly buy this, for the aforementioned non-Muslim uses of death do not specify a gruesome (or any) method to bring about that death.
What I have been told is that those statements are metaphorical, not literal.
Since all of the statements regarding non-Muslims call for the death of said non-Muslims, how exactly does one take those statements as metaphors?
If, to be a peaceful American as a Muslim, one must disregard all the teachings of the Koran regarding non-Muslims, how then would anyone be a practising Muslim in America?
Is one who disregards the clear instructions of Muhammad and relegates all of them to metaphor, a Muslim?
On what basis, with respect to the Koran, does one declare oneself a Muslim?
Who determines what "kill" means, metaphorically speaking?
Who determines what "enemy" means metaphorically?
All the Muslim clerics that I have heard on video have called for the utter annihilation of America. The president of Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Metaphorically, no doubt.
From all that I have read, and that would be a great deal over the last year; of all that I've heard in interviews with the heads of Muslim organizations, none has successfully diffused the violent directives in the Koran. They have simply said repeatedly that Muslims are peaceful people. However, if one is not Muslim, then the directive is to avoid peace like the plague... to be peaceful with a non-Muslim is grounds for death for a Muslim. How does one translate that metaphorically? Rape and steal translates to....?
As I said initially, one cannot be a true Muslim in America without being bound by the tenets of Islam to convert or kill all non-Muslims. As regards the president, this should be prosecuted as treason.
Did you read the material and links that I forwarded?
If, in fact, he said that, and providing his words were not taken out of context. :)
It seemed to me that you took my statement out of context when you overlooked the "perhaps" part of it. Granted, that was stated in the previous e-mail; hitting the "Reply" gives me the impression that we are having a conversation that is not constrained by the time lags between each e-mail, so I don't think to reiterate my previous statements.
Yes, I do think that Muslims would like to chop off our heads. (The fact that they have done so, repeatedly, convinces me that this is certainly true for at least some Muslims.) What I have been told is that those statements are metaphorical, not literal. I realize that by claiming the former they could well be hoping to lull us into false hope so that we are unprepared when the latter turns out to be true. I presented the "perhaps" statement as a possibility to be considered. That being said, I do believe that not all Muslims would partake in removing our heads, just as many people of other faiths do not subscribe to all that their religion teaches. Does this make them hypocrites? Of course, but personally, I prefer a hypocrital Muslim to a zealot! :)
Meanwhile, trusting in God will help you to not lose your head over it all! LOL!
I don't think I took your words out of context. I certainly didn't mean to. What I read was a reference to a scriptural passage that is translated, not interpreted, to mean that it would be better to remove the offending eye or hand than to spend all eternity in hell, suffering as a result of the actions of the offending body parts. The Christian scripture admonishes the individual to deal with his own spiritual problems. Though the language is strong it is, nonetheless, clear: IF it is necessary (as in, no other way will do) then "it would be better " to remove YOUR OWN offending body parts. This is not a matter of interpretation. It's pretty clear. It is stated, not interpreted, as a comparative value, not as a behavioral instruction. It is clear.
[BTW, the Bible also says that if one were to infect children with sinfulness, then it would be better for the culprit if he were never born. Is this to be interpreted as Jesus' approval of abortion, under certain circumstances, according to the quality of the life of an individual?]
And also, still in context, is the Koran. If you read the texts and links to texts which I forwarded to you, then I would be grateful if you could explain how one can interpret those words to mean anything other than what they say without simply making stuff up. Without calling a command to kill a Jew as to mean to metaphorically "kill" him by making him your friend and welcoming him into your home as a brother to "strike off his head" of alienation and feelings of being the object of hatred and scorn. It would appear that many Muslims think it means to kill him... with bombs and bullets and "striking off his head" literally, so as to end his life. The Koranic text is perfectly clear. It doesn't suggest any other interpretation; however to try to live as a Muslim in western society demands another meaning, yet there is none to be found in the texts as written. It is in this context that I suggested that the precepts of Islam are, unless fully renounced by the "believer", to be seen as a threat to the life of the president of the US (a person "of the Book"
As the Europeans declared that Scientology is a fabricated "religion", manufactured to serve its own ends and at the peril of others, so too should Islam be declared to be a psycho/political philosophy designed to justify the destruction of anyone whose property is desired by a Muslim and, as it promotes the violent destruction of this country and its citizens, be outlawed.
In this country, Scientology is accepted by the US government and the IRS as a religion. In Germany and Italy and a few other European countries it has been declared a business that offers "salvation" in the form of science fiction, but only to those that have tens of thousands of dollars to fork over to the "church". Otherwise, you're flat out of luck. Its founder, L. Ron Hubbard, was quoted by a friend as having made the statement that ~ to easily make a million dollars, one need only start a religion~. He said those words in 1951 when his book on the psychology of Dianetics was first published. The following year he declared his psycho/philosophy to be a religion and sought and gained tax exemption. (Simply Google "Scientology" and you'll have more reading material than you can handle.)
So why am I talking about Scientology and fraud? Because if, as I first proposed, the words of the Koran call repeatedly for the death at the hands of good Muslims, those who do not claim Allah as God then the Koran is an instrument of overthrow of the US government and its adherents should be declared as outlaws.
What does a country do to eradicate a threat to almost every citizen in its society?
What does one do when one's house is infested with vermin? What does the Bible say to do when something evil infests your soul? What does the Bible say to do with a body part that is causing your destruction? These are indeed difficult questions. Had I a solution, I certainly would have proposed it. However, I certainly do believe that doing nothing is not a solution.
[Please note that my opinion on this matter is based on the statements of Muslims who have abandoned that ideology. It is also formed by watching a video of a Muslim cleric of great renown in the middle east, as televised on Al-Jazeera TV, that called for the ~utter annihilation of the United States, its government and all other infidel pigs~. Not simply the words of a radical but rather programming on the television for public consumption. The audience (in the mosque) was large and very approving. They all looked and behaved as normal people. It is simply that this is what they are taught to believe]
Not intended to be literally interpreted by whom? There is nothing in the Koran that says that a Muslim can be at peace with anyone other than another Muslim. Nothing. There is, however, a great deal to the contrary. Factually, the Koran says only the direct opposite. All the time. Always.
To say that the religion of Islam supports peace with non-Muslims is to say that the New Testament supports murder (by interpretaion) and slaughter of innocents because it was "... not intended to be literally interpreted." The Koran preaches only hatred and killing. It never ever ... not once... accepts or allows for peace with non-believers. It always condemns such peace as the act of a traitor deserving of death (how does one interpret this?). Any interpretation that says otherwise is not Islamic... it is fiction. Or more accurately, deception.
""In the Koran, Muhammad made the rift between Muslims and the rest of us so wide that they are not even permitted to be your friends. I will share three verses to show this. (For everything I show you, there are many more verses. I just don't feel like rewriting the Koran.) Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people." Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another." Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah." If you are not a Muslim and you think you have a Muslim friend, you better read the Koran. According to the Koran, they are either pretending or sinning.""
If you have Muslim friends that tell you that they should not kill you if you do not convert to Islam, then they are not very good Muslims. There is nothing in Islam that preaches love of mankind, let alone love of non-Muslims. Islam teaches that a man's own family... his children... are a distraction from doing the work of Allah. As a distraction... a temptation to not follow Allah's will... a man's love for his family must be ignored.
If a Muslim professes love of one, other than another Muslim, they are in grave danger from a good Muslim who is under direct instruction in the Koran to kill the hypocrite... that Muslim who cowers from killing Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims. There is nothing in the Koran to say otherwise. This command is never refuted by Muhammad or the Koran. (In the New Testament, Jesus says that He is establishing a New Covenant. That the Old Covenant is completed. This never happens in Islam. Any other interpretation of the Koran is heresy.) Any other teaching is not from the Koran... such teaching would only come from Christianity which a good Muslim must annihilate according to Islamic law, per Muhammad.
Read the information from the following link. Read all of it. Define how it applies, or does not apply, to the statements of your friend.
Let me know how much of that no longer applies and when and how it was changed and by whom.
In Islam, is the befriending of a non-Muslim (as in the case with your friend) no longer punishable by death at the hands of a faithful Muslim who has not, by the instruction provided in the Koran, become a hypocrite, deserving of death?
If not, when did this modification occur? By whose authority did it occur?
Do the orthodox Muslims, those that blow up non-Muslims, accept this "modified" brand of Islam or have the moderates simply added themselves to the list of those to be destroyed by the faithful Muslims who adhere to the holy teachings of Allah's Apostle, Muhammad?
Muhammad hated hypocrites even worse than he did Jews and Christians . Hypocrites are the worst enemy of Islam and are considered traitors. According to Muhammad, you cannot be a liberal or moderate Muslim. (Your friend would be hated by Muhammed and cursed by Allah, according to the Koran) There are only orthodox Muslims and hypocrites. In the Koran, there are only three groups of people. These are Muslims, hypocrites, and non-Muslims.
Verse 3:117 - "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people." Verse 5:51 - "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another."Verse 60:13 - "Believers, do not make friends with those who have incurred the wrath of Allah." If you are not a Muslim and you think you have a Muslim friend, you better read the Koran. According to the Koran, they are either pretending or sinning.
Let's try verse 9:111 - "Allah has purchased from the faithful their lives and worldly goods, and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for the cause of Allah, they will slay, and be slain." Oops, I have never known any evangelist who went out slaying or killing those to whom they were evangelizing. I believe that this proves beyond any doubt that the war Muhammad keeps talking about in the Koran has to do with actual warfare and killing. So keep in mind that these Muslim leaders [are] lying to you, the Muslims in the Middle East including Osama Bin Ladden are not lying to you, and that the US Muslims who have said Islam is a religion of peace have no credibility. [Their statements of peace have no foundation in their scripture. They are statements that have nothing to do with Islam]
If a Christian interprets the words of Christ so that he no longer follows the teachings of Christ, is he still a Christian? Likewise, if a Muslim interprets the words of Muhammed in such a manner as to longer be following the instructions of the Koran, is he still a Muslim?
I agree. My point was that it was not intended to be literally interpreted. The same may be true for the Koran - (Muslim friends have assured me that this is the case).
In defense of the Judeao-Christian tradition, and in sharp contrast to Islam, the eyes and hands that are to be removed are those of the individual him/herself. It does not instruct one to remove body parts of others that we find to be offending. But then, if that were the case, we would soon cease to be able to see fault in oithers and ever increasingly forfeit the means by which to effect any violent solution upon the offending party.
Please don't misconstrue this as a defense of Islam, for it is most definitiely not. However, the Bible instructs us to pluck out our offending eyes, remove offending hands, etc. We understand what that means and do not take it literally. Perhaps the same type of interpretation is needed for certain parts of the Koran. (BTW, only Muslims are supposed to read/interpret it -- clever huh? ; )
Conversations (from an email)
As for Ms.Coulter, I have admired her writing for years because she so smartly cuts to the chase. If securing our country from attack of the explosive kind is our primary objective, then I agree with her wholeheartedly. If we recognize, however, that the violence wrought in the name of Allah is not solely against our people but also, if not more so, against the documented principles that allow us to experience the freedom that frightens them so much... if they were allowed such freedoms in their own countries, Islam would be abolished within a decade. That's what they fear most as the East increasingly needs to merge with the West for economic reasons. And in this process only one culture will survive. The idea of multiculturalism is utter nonsense. Name one society throughout all history where this ever happened and worked. None. There, look at all the research time I just saved you.
The question that has been increasingly looming in my mind is:
"Is Islam a religion or a political persuasion bent on destroying that which it can't absorb?"
Personally, I don't see it as a religion any more than I see Nazism or Communism as a religion. Remember the early Christians lived as communists in the pure sense. The charity and concern at its heart was religious in nature. However as we all have become aware, Communism can also be a political persuasion and it is not good.
I'm inclined to view Islam in the same way.
though it is certainly not what might be said in delicate circles, i think Islam should be outlawed as being detrimental to the welfare of our country. Its precepts demand our destruction and if we watch it happen, like so many sheep, then it's likely what we deserve.
Conversations (from an email)
"All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." – T.E. Lawrence
Conversations (from an email)
The fact that the Holy Scriptures of Islam say, and I paraphrase: "Those that won't convert to Islam are to have their heads cut off"...(or something very close) demands that we ask of a high level Muslim cleric who has recognition within the Muslim community and in the population in general... Mr. Hooper from CAIR perhaps, as an authority on Islam:
1) Do good Muslims follow all the laws/precepts of the Koran/Qu'ran? Why?
2) Do Muslims have the freedom within their religious conduct to pick and choose which parts of their holy scriptures they will follow/obey? How so and why? How do we know which Muslim follows which teachings?
3) Does threatening to kill, by virtue of an all-inclusive general statement of belief as spelled out in the Koran, as a non-converted Christian, the President of the United States (and all the members of Congress and the military), if he refuses to worship Allah constitute a criminal act? If not, why not?
And, of the American people, it should be asked:
1) Is Islam a religion or a political philosophy that threatens American security as an anti-American political agenda, bent on the destruction of this country by virtue of its "holy scripture" and its teachings? If not, why not?
2) Should the practice of Islam by those who believe/follow all of its precepts be banned in this country? If not, why not?
3) Should avowed Muslims be allowed to live in America if, by being good Muslims, they must obey their holy scriptures and kill all Christians who insist on remaining? If not, why not?
4) Am I a good American citizen if I don't thoroughly investigate this philosophy of death to Christians and Jews?
I "Googled" the phrase "koran kill christians"
Below are links to just two of the 506,000 responses that came back after 0.22 seconds of searching. (I guess the idea is not very obscure, having so many entries on the subject found so quickly)
Is not seeing Islam as a force of death in America, focused on the death of all Americans, a form of denial?
And from another:
But don't take my word about who the unbelievers are, take the word of Muhammad. I want you to notice that he placed special emphasis on Jews and Christians (People of the Book.) We will start with verse 5:17 - "Unbelievers are those who declare: 'God is the Messiah, the son of Mary.'" Oops, I bet some of you blindly believed the Muslims who have been going around speaking at Christian churches saying they worship the same God we do (we already proved that to not be true), they also believe in "The Same Jesus" and even believe in Him more than we do, and that Islam and Christianity are the same religions. You should have read the Koran instead of letting the liars spoon feed you. Always remember this, it is considered a good deed for Muslims to successfully lie to their enemy. Then they go home, call you suckers, and laugh at you for being fools.
Patty Murray's failure to observe the facts...and her own writings!
On Mar 30, 2005 12:51 PM, mailto:Senator@murray.senate.gov
Thank you for contacting me about Theresa Marie Schiavo of Florida. I appreciate hearing from you about this very personal and difficult matter. As you know, following a lengthy legal battle Mrs. Schiavo's husband authorized the removal of her feeding tube on Friday March 18, 2005. On Monday March 21, 2005 Congress passed private legislation allowing Mrs. Schiavo's parents to seek relief through the Federal Court system, which the President promptly signed into law. This legislation passed the Senate by a Voice Vote. Because I had already departed the country for an official Senate trip, I was not present to vote on the Schiavo bill. I do not believe that it was appropriate for the Congress and federal government to become involved in this very complex and personal matter. In the future, legislation dealing with such sensitive issues must be allowed to work through the regular process of committee and floor debate and consideration. In general, I believe these decisions are best left to families, their faith, and their physician without outside interference. Again, I appreciate hearing from you on this difficult matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me about other issues that are important to you. Sincerely, Patty Murray, United States Senator -------
--- Forwarded message ---------- From: T "mailto:Senator@murray.senate.gov" Senator@murray.senate.gov href="mailto:Senator@murray.senate.gov" Senator@murray.senate.gov Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 21:15:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Response from Senator Murray
Dear Ms. Murray,
If you followed the story closely, and I'm sure you did, you will have noticed that her family did not want her to be starved and dehydrated to death, but her estranged, adulterous husband did. Her faith clearly condemned it, as the Vatican declared it as cruel and as murder. And within highly regarded medical circles there was some consternation as to the actual state of Terri Schiavo, though no thorough examination was permitted by the man that wanted her to die, to which the courts remanded custody. So though I believe you when you say you "believe these decisions are best left to families, their faith, and their physician", I wonder that you fully understood that what happened in Florida was not according to her first family... the one's to whom God sent her initially (do you have a daughter?)..., her faith nor the whole of the medical community that was involved. If congress doesn't involve itself in preserving such constitutional issues as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", then I question what good purpose is served by congress and those who accept taxpayer dollars to represent the people. I truly and sincerely hope that congress will get involved if it ever comes to preserving your own life if you should ever find that you are unable to do so yourself.
Sincerely concerned about the America my children will inherit,
A letter sent to the governor of Pennsylvania regarding the placement of a bronze plaque to commemorate the first gay march as if it was in the same league as civil rights marches for equality of black people in America. The governor intended to honor two guys for practicing sodomy and demanding that everyone else say that is was a good thing for them to do so. How do you spell twisted?
Governor: You have a unique position in that you preside over the handling of matters concerning the state of Pennsylvania (the state where I was raised and where most of my family still lives) regarding the placement of a marker to what many would consider twisted thinking. But you have a further responsibility of safeguarding, for all Americans, the landmarks of our country's heritage, a heritage for which tens of thousands of American men and women have given up their very lives and many more risk them still today.
To deface the seat of our very sacred democracy (a system of government, by definition, where the majority gets to decide what will happen; at last count, homosexuals are vastly in the minority …3% I think is the official number…and the majority of this country overwhelmingly is opposed to the homosexual agenda!) with the insult of a heraldic marker in praise of homosexuality...think about it...a marker to denote such behavior which was once considered illegal by the very nature of its un-naturalness... akin to bestiality...we now draw attention to it as if it were exemplary and worthy of emulation. A marker about sexuality... considered by the majority to be perverse. Think about it… a marker to draw attention to the persistence of some people to flaunt their aberrant behavior in the face of the majority. If this is not unfortunately ignorant then it is at best, grossly irresponsible. As I recall, in preparation for the bi-centennial festivities, which centered in Philadelphia as the birthplace of a nation, the city's decision makers allowed for the demolition of two historic houses to make room for the much need fast food restaurant, McDonalds. Appalled, congress passed legislation forbidding the city of Philadelphia… unique legislation!... from removing or demolishing any structures without congressional approval. Imagine how it will feel for you to have a congressional spanking, as did Frank Rizzo, the mayor of Philadelphia, for being too irresponsible to be allowed to be in charge of the affairs of his city as the marker which you plan to present to the city is recalled as inappropriate. Surely I don't deny that people who are inclined to enjoin in
homosexual behavior are worthy of respect as people, yet I am mindful that respect should be earned, not granted. But to single them out for their
homosexuality in a public way with a government agency sponsored commemoration seems perverse and unfair to the rest of the taxpayers who comprise that vast majority of your constituency. Is there a proposal to honor the majority… those who enjoy their sexuality in a natural way?
Or should there be a movement to bring heterosexuality to the fore and make human sexuality a cause for markers on public buildings? The more one thinks about it the more bizarre it seems.
And to say that it's about civil rights is patently absurd; unless of course
prostitution as a profession should also get a marker. Though it is presently illegal as was homosexuality, it needn't be. After all it's simply a mater of which laws we pass, right? Then we can extol the virtues of all those hard working women who simply want to express themselves sexually as an art form and get paid for their contribution to society. Where does it stop?
Seriously, I urge you, as the governor of the great state of Pennsylvania, to use some sense here instead of giving in to the urge to follow the trend. It's that sort of behavior that takes lemmings over the edge.