Recently, Haley Sweetland Edwards and Garrett Therolf reported that Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh, in a speech before the UN,  blamed the U.S. and Israel for ‘destabilizing the Arab world’  http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0311/yemen_blames_israel.php3).  He said that the anti-government protests in his capital were being run by the White House.

The truth is that his conclusion about Israel being a destabilizing force in the Arab world is true, but not for the reasons he stated. (I hope no one takes my comment out of context and use it to say that I agree president Saleh’s remarks.)

The reasons that Israel is a destabilizing influence in the Mideast are multiple.  The ordinary citizen in the Arab world witnesses how the remnants of a devastated people – a people who were decimated by the Holocaust and who survived concentration and death camps and  who were driven from virtually every corner of the Earth settle in a nearby area where their brethren have been living for centuries, which then became an independent nation.  And, within the  span of 60 -70 years they observed how this supposed cursed nation progressed from impoverishment in an undeveloped land, virtually devoid of natural resources, to become a stable democratic nation and a world leader in science and technology and an exporter of agricultural produce as they made the desert bloom, even while – at times – being forced to spend up to 50%, if not more, of its GNP on defense and being forced to engage in a continuous struggle for survival against the combined forces of its boarder states supported by not only the larger Muslim world but other nations as well.

Logic dictates that the people have been and are seeing a disconnect between what they were being told and taught by their political and religious leaders and reality.  It is natural that these oppressed people would desire the same for themselves.

This awareness was always the real fear of the Arab world and why the Arab/Muslim nations were so adamantly opposed to having a Jewish nation live alongside their feudal societies which are run by autocrats who not only run their autocratic nations cruelly but also theocratically – which only added to the burden of their people’s lives.

Having a successful functioning democracy – especially a Jewish nation which they were taught to be cursed by Allah – along side them would be destabilizing because the people would then be able to see for themselves what they were being deprived of and would demand such freedoms and opportunities for themselves.

It would be helpful and enlightening if the leaders of the Arab/Muslim nations would be honest and enter into individual or regional alliances with Israel to help develop their own nations and the region.

It would be helpful and enlightening, if the European nations and the anti-Israel media and the anti-Israel political left and right would spend their time encouraging such agreements instead of using their resources for disseminating distortions and lies about Israel and for fomenting  hate and discord towards Jews while promoting war.

That there is a war on women occurring in the US has been disputed by some of my more conservative friends.  During the discussion involving such mundane activities as providing evidence, I also tried to introduce some critical thinking by suggesting to them that the war on women has explicit implications for the death of god.

Once I had their attention,  I suggested that this serious implication raises a conundrum.  In certain traditions, god had already been killed!  When did that occur?  How and why would humans want to kill IT again?

The first killing supposedly occurred about 2,000 yrs ago on a cross in Calvary.   According to the concept of the triune Godhead, the father, the son and the holy spirit represent three aspects of the godhead.  The son – also considered to be the messiah and god – was considered to be a political threat to Roman rule and was ordered to be killed by a Roman court.  In carrying out the order, the Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to the cross where he eventually died.  For now, I will reserve any theological discussion on how humans can kill an omniscient and omnipotent god for some future date – after I work out the details.

This supposed series of events were incorporated into a newly created, quasi-historical, political document by a group of human men who also declared the final product to be a new and holy theological scripture which now served  as a replacement for an already existing body of holy documents.  This holy book – now called The New Testament – became institutionalized into a religious belief system with a priestly hierarchy and became a major influence in the subsequent development of western civilization: this hierarchy, with its unsubstantiated, politically oriented, holy book and belief system as its foundation, in turn, had a great impact on the ensuing development of civilizations throughout the world.  The hierarchy also instituted periodic fatal edicts against groups of people who refused (still refuse) to accept its canonical creation as being replete with “infallible” truths, who refuse(d) to accept it as a replacement for existing religious scripture – now derogatorily labeled The Old Testament, and who also refuse(d) to live according to its dictates.  The continuous existence of such stiff-necked people constitute(d) a perpetual threat to the hierarchy and its imposed belief system.  Therefore, from its outset, the hierarchy instituted policies that would cause such obstinate and inflexible people to be subjugated, demonized, dehumanized, even destroyed (think papal statements and decrees as well as special prayers and inclusion in the sponsored educational systems, think institutionalized racism, religious disputations, think gated ghettos and lack of civil rights – inter alia, think wearing of distinctive identification badges, think limiting educational, occupational opportunities, land ownership and legal standing in disputes with the ruling class and true believers – think poisoning of wells, think false blood libel charges, think the Inquisition, think pogroms, think false documents such as The Protocols of the Learned elders of Zion, Think the Dreyfus trial, think the Shoa/Holocaust).

The belief system’s influence with its dire consequences is being felt in this 21st century since the supposed first death of the messiah-god.    The almost success in one situation of the triumvirate – demonization, dehumanization, and destruction – provides the required credence to support the triumvirates adoption and expansion by the larger society so as to be able to be used against any individual or group that dares to act contrary to what constitute the social, political and ethical positions of particular individuals or groups irrespective of their association with the hierarchy.

One of the many overt manifestations of this influence is the attempt of such individuals and groups at controlling virtually all aspects of the lives of women, especially their sexual and reproductive functions.  These warriors consider fertilized ova and ensuing fetuses to be equivalent to post-natal, existing humans.  Hence, the war on women (hereafter, people carrying out this war will be referred to as the Warriors). I am not referring to Thurber’s incomparable gentle humor of the battle between the sexes.  The bombing of abortion clinics and the murder of physicians tending to the specific needs of pregnant women along with the defunding of organizations that provide important health information and services to women is not funny; one could hardly find humor – unless it is of the most macabre type – in such antisocial and uncivilized behavior of Warriors sworn to defend the life of a fertilized ovum even if it endangers the lives of others including the life of the involved, already existing female.

There is at least one logical conclusion that derives from certain actions on the part of these Warriors that may have a humorous overtone.  First a little background.

By now, everyone is, or should be, pretty much aware of Georgia State Representative Bobby Franklin’s (R- Marietta) attempt at introducing legislation, which, according to Lindsay Beyerstein (http://bigthink.com/ideas/31348), “Seeks to Criminalize Unauthorized Vaginal Bleeding.”  Franklin introduced legislation “to investigate all unsupervised miscarriages as crime scenes.”  The relevant language from HB 1:

“When a spontaneous fetal death required to be reported by this Code section occurs without medical attendance at or immediately after the delivery or when inquiry is required by Article 2 of Chapter 16 of Title 45, the ‘Georgia Death Investigation Act,’ the proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare and file the report within 30 days[...]“

According to Jen Phillips (http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/02/miscarriage-death-penalty-georgia) miscarriages and abortions could be punishable by death.  And, it is with this potential death penalty for miscarriages that logic now takes over with perhaps its “dark humor” conclusion.  But first, I am not sure how this law will be implemented:  will women have to report each day of their menstrual flow to some agency to have their flow inspected to see whether or not there was evidence of a miscarriage?  How will it be determined if such a miscarriage involved some deliberate human action?  Yet, the Warriors belong to a class of people who are opposed to big government and are opposed to having government in their lives.  Yet, Franklin’s proposed law would not only greatly enlarge the role of government but also have government intrude into the lives of individuals and families.

But, then again, we are familiar with the cynical, political adage – which seems to fit the image of the Warriors, that government involvement (intrusion?) in the lives of people and their businesses are good, even necessary, for others but not for me.

According to the Warriors, a child is a gift of god.  According to science and medicine, approximately 50% of the conceptuses terminate in a spontaneous miscarriage (abortion).  All too often the female isn’t even aware that she is (was) “pregnant”.  Ergo, the miscarriage or spontaneous abortion becomes an act of  god.  According to Franklin’s proposed law, god would have to be put on trial and, if found guilty, put to death.  How many times will society permit god to murder fertilized ova and fetuses before invoking a death penalty? How many millions of conceptuses and fetus that spontaneously abort will society tolerate?

However, according to New Testament history, god was killed once, but had the audacity to rise from the dead.  Supposing, each time society kills god again, IT continues to rise from the dead and continues to slaughter innocent human fertilized ova and fetuses?  A logical conundrum.  Of course, this theological and practical problem would not exist if there was no god.

Jews are used to putting god on trial: Jews have done that for centuries.   The problem is that god never showed up at the time of the accusations.  But, for the believers of the New Testament, putting god on trial would be a new theological development.

Perhaps the Shadow’s saying:  ”Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?” should be amended as follows: “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of god?”

I suggest that during any discussion of Franklin’s Bill,  we should encourage a discussion of the logical consequences of its   passage.  Perhaps, during such a discussion we would witness the evolution (Oops. Sorry for the slip.  The Warriors are also opposed to evolution.) of a new theology.

The recent self-immolations by Arabs in Tunisia and Egypt seems to have caught the politicos and pundits in the Western world off guard as it did the antisemitic political left.  Even while forces were developing and were growing to bring down the Mubarak government in Egypt, the public was listening to Hillary – the voice for the Arab/Muslims in the Obama administration – and other elected and appointed officials tell us – nay, assure us –  that the Egyptian Government is stable.

While the various politicians and the leftist pundits and intellectuals were busy blaming Israel for all the ills and ferment in the Middle East – if not the entire world – and trying to get everyone to focus on solving the Israeli-”Palestinian” issue they, predictably, missed the big story – one that many of us were saying, i.e. that the Arab world was using the Israelis (Jews), once again as the time-honored external scapegoats to hide their own internal problems.

Now we see the veracity of that insight playing out before us.

Notice how quiet are the pundits and the antisemitic political left and even our administration  along with other Western administrations and other pundits.  They have not yet figured out how to blame Israel or the Jews for these events.

Israel, now, is not in the center of these events.  Israel, like the rest of the world is now a bystander wondering what all of these events will mean regionally and globally and how these events will affect its relationship with the various Arab nations, especially Egypt, a nation with which Israel has had, to date, a 30 year peace treaty.

It never occurred to them that the in the Muslim Arab world, the people are concerned with such mundane aspects of life as their economic situation, health care, sanitation, clean water, education and personal freedom.  The truth is emerging: these people really do not give a damn about the so-called “Palestinians” and perhaps are even getting tired of being used as canon fodder by their political and clerical leaders  and tired of being used by people throughout the world for their own selfish, political agendas.

Perhaps access to modern technology and the varied means of rapid communication as well as actually witnessing the discrepancy in life style between themselves and the country they have been assured is the cause of their misery and therefore their enemy is finally penetrating the masses and making them realize how they have been used and abused and lied to.

They see the remnants of a devastated people decimated by the Holocaust, who are survivors of concentration and death camps and  who were driven from virtually every corner of the Earth settle in a nearby state who then, within the  span of 60 -70 years,  progressed from impoverishment in an undeveloped land to become a democratic nation and a world leader in science and technology and an exporter of agricultural produce, even while being forced to spend more than 50% of its GNP on defense and being forced to engage in a continuous struggle for survival against the combined forces of its boarder states supported by not only the larger Muslim world but other nations as well .  Logic dictates that the people have been and are seeing a disconnect between what they were being told and reality.  It is natural that they would desire the same for themselves.

Instead of their leaders creating conditions that would emulate  success as achieved by Israel, they see their leaders as continually oppressing them, denying them basic human rights while retaining the yoke of poverty around their necks.   Rather than using their innate talents and energies to learn from Israel and develop and advance their own societies, they see their leaders squander their resources in attempts at destroying the successful nation of Israel.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we are seeing the beginnings of a reform movement in the Arab/Muslim world, led by a new generation of young men and women that could spread to the rest of the Muslim world?

But freedom and enlightenment come with a very high price tag.  There will be the unfortunate loss of life.  The inevitable repressive responses already have set in and other governments are clamping down on dissent.

It is going to be interesting to see what unfolds in the ensuing weeks and months and  how the West and political left is going to respond to the events pertaining to the personal, economic and political aspirations of the Arab/Muslim citizenry.

I cannot help but wonder how the NY (T)(SL)IMES,  (T)(S)LIME MAGAZINE, the Guardian, the BBC, NPR, AP et al. will report these events and put them into context if they cannot put their predictable anti-Israel antisemitic twists to the stories?  I wonder if they will start to tell the real truth instead of their fiction?

No way!

They could never publicly acknowledge their errors.

I could see it now:  all of these media outlets have their fiction writers holed up in some large room behind closed doors, not letting them leave – except, perhaps for a bathroom break, having food, water and toiletries and a change of clothes brought in and having them sleeping on the premises while they are brainstorming and using their creative energies and talents to develop the new fairy tales of Jewish involvement with which to dazzle the public and, once again, mislead them as to what is truly occurring in the world.

A Jewish external scapegoat is still required to explain their dishonest and negatively biased reporting about Israel.  The deadly ideology is all important and must be retained at the expense of truth and justice.

I never cease to be amazed by the general ignorance of people in our society, especially those who like to think of themselves as being intellectuals – irrespective of their occupations, and those who consider themselves social commentators.

When I was actively teaching as well as  giving public talks on science and religion, inevitably I asked the  students or the audiences: “What constitutes culture?”  Collectively, they would develop a consensus definition which closely resembled that of Jeff Chang and Brian Komar in their article “Vision: How We Can Beat Conservatives With Progressive Culture” that appeared in The American Prospect (January 26, 2011):  ”Culture is the space in our national consciousness filled by music, books, sports, movies, theater, visual arts, and media. It is the realm of ideas, images, and stories — ”  My groups tended to  include religion and express some of the above activities in more general terms such as literature  - so as to include fiction and non fiction books, essays and poetry –  and accepted my inclusive term of fine and performing arts for dance, music, art and acting.  During the process, I kept asking them what was missing.  In response to my prodding, they kept adding subjects until they reached what they thought was the final product.

It is at this point that I continued to goad them by asking what was missing from the list.  At this time, there was the inevitable, prolonged silence accompanied by quizzical looks on their faces.  They thought that they had covered everything that is usually considered to constitute culture.   The reactions I elicited transcended political ideology, religious orientation, sex etc.  Irrespective of the audience, I persisted in asserting that something was missing.  Have you figured it out?  I had already  provided the answer.

That which is missing is science(including math)/technology.  Somewhat ironically, the students were sitting in biology classes during these intellectual exercises.  Despite the fact that we live in a scientific and technological age and that there isn’t an aspect of our lives  that has not been affected by science and technology – including the so-called traditional componenets of culture – no one ever seemed to think of or consider science/technology as part of culture until I forced them to confront reality and do some critical thinking.

I never completely understood why this cultural blind spot existed.  I considered the attitude from the general public as having been derived from their lifelong exposure to and brainwashing by religion and the anti-science influence of movies and TV.   I had a slightly greater difficulty of understanding such a deficiency from the literati and self-labeled intellectuals, especially those in the humanities and, to a barely lesser extent, those in the social sciences: all these individuals tended to express a loathing – perhaps a fear – of science/technology.  It was as if it was beneath their dignity to consider science/technology as high culture.  It was as if  science and technology existed in some parallel universe.  People were willing to utilize all of the advantages brought by science and technology without recognizing these disciplines for what they really had become, the center of our culture.

On occasion, I would suggest to colleagues in the humanities that scientists and technologists knew more about literature and the fine and performing arts than they did about science.  I would point out that scientists and technologists did more general reading, attend art shows, attend theater, dance and concerts, visited museums etc. while subscribing to a variety of cultural magazines such as The New Yorker while there was not a single one of them who read or even subscribed to Scientific American,  the Smithsonian or the National Geographic - except perhaps for the men to pick up an occasional issue when sitting in a physician or dental office to see whether that issue had pictures of  naked or half naked native women from some exotic land.

The responses to my observation almost always included a sneering statement to the effect that I was making an erroneous comparison.  Yet, when challenged as to why it was erroneous, neither a valid justification nor a valid explanation for their accusation was ever forthcoming.

Based on the writings of Chang and Komar and despite all the great scientific and technological advances of the past 150 years including the advances in medicine and the increase in longevity,  it would seem that nothing has changed in the 40 – 50 years that I have been challenging people to explain to me what constitutes culture.

The WikiLeak documents have demonstrated the dual nature of secrecy in government policy making decisions and actions.  There should be no question that these leaks support the concept that there are areas of national security that do require secrecy.  The leaks also demonstrated, quite conclusively, that the power to label secret has been abused to the detriment of the public.

I see no reason why documents pertaining to the Vatican’s response to Ireland’s investigation of priests and Roman Catholic church officials with respect tot he abuse of children should be labeled secret.  There is no area of national security that would be compromised by having this information made public.  Apparently, recently released U.S. diplomatic cables indicate that the Vatican (Pope and the Curia) was “offended” that the Irish government failed to respect the “sovereignty” of the Vatican by requiring high-ranking clergy to answer questions from and Irish Commission that was investigating decades of sexual abuse of minors by the clergy.

I do not deny that for the longest time, I considered the Roman Catholic Church to be one of the world’s most evil institutions.

The WikiLeaks documents just adds another layer of evidence of covering up of Church officials who engaged in obscene behavior and committed heinous crimes against children.  From my perspective these documents give lie to the denial by Irish tour guides of any sex-related scandal in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland as reported about the Church in the U.S.A.

The Irish government  and the independent Commission were in a bind.  The Vatican is not just any city-state, it is city-state which is also the head of one of the major religions of the world.  Thus, as a religious institution, the Vatican should not be permitted to draw upon its right to sovereignty as a city-state to hide criminal acts of its officials with respect to their religious obligations.  As a religious body, it should be subservient to the laws of the states in which its religion is practiced.  The Roman Catholic Church, through the Vatican, as much as it desires, should not be entitled to any right greater than that afforded any other religion.

In Verdi’s opera, Don Carlos, there is one scene in which the state bows before the church.  That was in the 16th century.  Today we are in the 21st century and we still find a state that bows before the church.

And, for several decades in the U.S., despite the first amendment and the concept of separation of church and state, we see the Conservatives creating a situation where the state is bowing before the church (not necessarily the Roman Church, but the concept of Church in general).

We never seem to learn our lesson.

In the Leaked papers there is a comment by the U.S. ambassador to the Pope indicating that he also condemned the leaks and said the Vatican and America cooperate in promoting universal values.

What universal values is the United States of America cooperating with the Vatican in promoting?

I was not aware the the US government was involved in promoting the sodomizing of children nor was I aware that the US government is promoting such behavior as a universal value.

Apparently from the leaked documents we learn that the letters sent by the Irish investigators “offended many in the Vatican” because they were viewed as “an affront to Vatican sovereignty.”"

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Vatican Sovereignty is more important than investigating crimes against children by church officials – men who claim to be holy, to be role models, and men who want special privileges in life because they claim that they preach the word of god.  Throughout my adult life, I have read and re-read, on more than one occasion, the Jewish and Christian Scriptures and never saw any passage that glorified sodomy nor have I ever read that sodomy is a universal value.

Have I missed something?

The time has come to stop treating the Vatican as a city-state and treat it for what it is: a super wealthy organization designed to steal money from people under false pretenses, maintain its high officials in a lavish life style while keeping people ignorant, superstitious, emotionally dependent, and designed to create an atmosphere whereby it could perpetuate its evil dogmas.  The time has come to disregard the Vatican and everything it stands for.

The following flow chart, sent to me by a correspondent, is just noe of the best ever made, it also can serve as a paradigm of the evolution of the current American political scene.

In a conversation about the role of Islam in modern society, a friend referred to me as being anti-Muslim.  I took umbrage at that statement.  When he made that accusation, I immediately began to compose a response.  As I quickly formulated my answer, I realized that  he may be suffering from a very common social malady that became very apparent to me ever since the building of the mosque controversy, i.e., thinking that Islam and Muslim are synonymous.  Unfortunately, too many people, deliberately or through ignorance, do not seem to understand the difference between Islam and Muslim.  I have heard it expressed all too often that if a person is anti-Islam, he/she/it (I prefer the “it” since I do not have to be concerned with the sex of the individual and grammatically correct gender terminology) is automatically anti-Muslim.

My slightly edited response to him is what I now want to share with you.

Please do not refer to me as anti-Muslim.
That is a gross mischaracterization.

Such a depiction implies that I accept stereotyping as being socially acceptable.  For the record: stereotyping is not just sloppy thinking, it could also be a manifestation of irrational hate.

I try to avoid stereotyping religious or ethnic groups irrespective of whether or not they are Muslims.  People are diverse.  And cognizance of diversity should be acknowledged.  Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Poles nor all Christians antisemitic.  If that was true then there would be no such thing as the Righteous Gentile at Yad V’Shem – the memorial to the Holocaust in Israel.  There were those Germans, Poles, Dutch, Danes – Christians all – who helped to save Jewish lives.  My cousin was one of the Jews who was saved by a family that practiced Catholicism.

Permit me to clarify something that which I thought would be quite obvious from my writings.

My understanding is that Islam is the name of a religion; Muslim refers to adherents of Islam.

Yes, I am anti-Islam for several reasons.  If you had characterized me as being anti-Islam, in all likelihood I would not have responded.  But then again that should be expected since I am an atheistic secular humanist and am opposed to all organized or disorganized religions.

I am not anti-Muslim.

I am opposed to those Muslims who want to carry out all of the  mandates Mohammad inserted in the Koran about killing the infidel, specifically the Jew.  I have nothing against those Muslims who reject that aspect of the religion.  Make no mistake, when Muslims reject the anti-social views embedded in the Koran, in the eyes of the fundamentalists they are not being good Muslims.  If this makes me anti-Muslim then so be it.

I am opposed to those Muslims who want to kill me and others because we refuse to believe what they believe.  If this makes me anti-Muslim then so be it.  I have nothing against Muslims who reject this aspect of the religion.

I am opposed to Muslims who so disrespect me and others that they demand that life must be their way – on their terms – or no way.  If this makes me anti-Muslim then so be it.

I am opposed to those Muslims who justify murder and mayhem (terrorism) because of something as stupid as a religious belief – irrational religious beliefs – no facts, just a belief.  (Anyone who really understands the deep disgust in my voice when I use that word belief would then understand the full depth of what I am saying.  I agree completely with the discussion of the detailed word belief in Gottlieb’s book The Naked Mind.  Belief could be one of the most dangerous and disgusting words in the language.)  I have nothing against those Muslims who reject this aspect of their religion.

Stop and think:  Supposing everyone decided to kill and destroy because others do not accept their beliefs that they call religious?
Would you respect, let alone tolerate, such behavior?
If this makes me anti-Muslim then so be it.

I am opposed to the media that has introduced a double standard which includes magnifying anything deemed anti-social that Israel or an Israeli does but not report what the Muslim Arabs are doing.  The article I sent you about Palestinian men raping women who come to promote peace and the Palestinian cause is just one example of  what I am referring to.  Another example would be the failure of the media to fully report on the significance of and use of the Muslim war cry “Khaibar!  Jew, Mohamad’s army is coming to get you!” by the Muslims in Bali and in the flotilla incident.  If this makes me anti-Muslim then so be it.

Please, do not label me anti-Muslim because I want to live in a safe and peaceful world and not have to worry about someone imposing their irrational beliefs on me for any reason but especially on the threat of death if I refuse to obey them.  I do not want my children or grandchildren to have to live in such a world.  Obey is the correct word because Islam means submission (to god) and Muslim means one who submits (to god.  By extension, I suppose it could also mean one who submits to a cleric who supposedly speaks in the name of god.  Is not that an aspect of recruiting potential suicide bombers and other terrorists?).

Please, do not label me anti-Muslim because I want to live in a safe and peaceful world where I do not have to worry about someone calling me a Jew, in the most derogatory sense of the word, because they have made this part of their religion and their vocabulary.    I am not required to and I refuse to accept such uncivilized behavior as the norm.  I do not want my children or grandchildren to have to live in such a world.

If, because of my views I am no longer considered a liberal or its current incarnation, progressive, so be it.

From my perspective, people, especially liberals/progressives, who accept the uncivilized behavior that I oppose, because such acceptance would supposedly demonstrate great tolerance and understanding of multicultural equality on their part – or does not jibe with their current anti-Israel politics, is a fool.  I am well aware that by my saying this I will be angering many people.  It is time someone held a non-fog mirror to their face and hope that as they look into it, their eyes will really be open.

Now I will ask you:
Do you accept the behavior that I described and oppose as being socially redeemable?
Do you want to live in the world that I oppose?
Do you want your children and grandchildren to live in such a world?
If you agree with me, then are you willing to stand up and say so?
Would you then be willing to don the label of being anti-Muslim?

In all of the discussions as to whether or not Islam is a peaceful religion, the public has been assured, by various spokespersons, that only a small percentage of Muslims are militant: it is they who have hijacked the religion.  Such discussions have become prevalent primarily as a result of all the Muslim-induced terrorism that has been inflicted on the world in the past four decades and, secondarily, from people who claim that from their study of history the militants of today do not represent anything new.  They contend that Islam, from its inception, was always controlled by fanatics.

On various political programs, spokespersons for Islam have assured the interviewer and the American people that only about 5 – 10% of Muslims are militant.  When presented as such, it would seem that numbers truly are small.

Using simple arithmetic, let us convert percent into actual numbers and see what these numbers reveal.  In doing these simple conversions, I will be using average numbers.

There are between 1.0 to 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
5% of 1.3 billion is 65 million.
65 million is about 21% of the population of the USA.
65 million is a lot of people.
65 million fanatical Muslims coupled to their Koranic mandate to dominate the world and considering Islam’s history of violence  becomes a very frightening statistic.

There are about 3 million Muslims in the USA.  President Barack Obama, in his speech on Islam in Cairo used the figure of “seven million American Muslims.”

5% of 3 million is 150 thousand fanatical Muslims just in the US.  150 thousand is the approximate population of cities such as Vancouver, Washington, Springfield, Missouri or Patterson, New Jersey.
To many people, the thought of 150 thousand fanatical Muslims bent on destroying the USA is frightening: they could do a lot of damage.

Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist. is purported to have written “A German’s View on Islam” in which he compares what happened in Russia, Germany, Italy and Japan with what is occurring today with Islam throughout the world.

“A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. ‘Very few people were true Nazis,’ he said, ‘but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.’

“We are told again and again by ‘experts’ and ‘talking heads’ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.  Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant.  It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

“The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history; it is the fanatics who march…it is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.  It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill.  It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.  It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide
bombers..

“The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the ’silent majority,’ is cowed and extraneous.

“Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people.

“The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China ’s huge population
was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

“The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist.  Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

“And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were ‘peace loving’?

“History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:

“Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.  Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

“Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.  As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts–the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”

One lesson to be learned from this exercise in simple arithmetic is to be wary of the way people use numbers, especially if they have something to hide.

The building of the mosque in NYC has generated arguments pro and con along with great emotion.  Recently, one of the best defense of the building of the mosque was offered by Reverend Travis Norvell, Pastor of the St Charles Avenue Baptist Church in New Orleans, LA.  in an opinion piece that appeared in the Times Picayune on (TP) 8/25/2010.

Unfortunately, there were some aspects of the defense that required correction and an alternate point of view.

My very close friend wrote such a response but has not heard from the T-P and is assuming that the TP is not going to publish his views.  This was not surprising since the TP is considered a political left newspaper and the political left seems to be intent on getting only one point of view heard.  He has given me permission to put his opinion on my blog.  Here it is.

Dear Editor:

I am writing to present an alternate view to that of Reverend Norvell who ((8/25/2010) defended the building of a mosque on private grounds near Ground Zero in New York City on the basis of freedom of religion and supported with examples from colonial American history.

For many Americans the issue is not nor ever has been freedom of religion – a constitutional guarantee – but the meaning of the mosque, i.e., what will this 15 story mosque/cultural center on Ground Zero truly represent?  Ground Zero represents the most horrific terrorist attack ever by Muslims on Americans and in America.  We contend that the mosque is not being built for promoting mutual respect and tolerance, as claimed, but for advancing the aims of Islam.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was less than truthful with the American public as to the purpose of the mosque.  Only recently has he promoted the view of improving relations with Islam.   From its inception, everything from the naming of the Cordoba project to the statements of various Imams was that this mosque would be a symbol of Muslim triumphalism.

Triumphalism, throughout the Muslim world implies a victory for Islam over inferior and decadent western cultures and proof of  the truthfulness of the Koranic mandate of Islam becoming the dominant world religion.  Rauf’s philosophy is stated in his 2005 book “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America.”  It is unlikely this mosque would  promote tolerance and understanding based on his writings, his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist group, his belief that U.S. foreign policy was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and his statement that the U.S. was “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11.

It has been well documented that mosques in the US primarily have been built and supported by Saudi Arabia and its brand of Islam – Wahbbism.  They have been teaching and preaching hatred of infidels and violence, they have been breeding grounds for terrorists and they have been used as recruiting sites of terrorists as did the mosque in Germany.   Recently, in Hamburg, Germany, the mosque associated with the 9/11 murderers was shut down by the German government because it concluded, after a decade of experience, that the Imams were teaching and preaching hate, anti-western values and jihadism rather than promoting understanding and tolerance it was supposed to do..

The size, purpose and siting of this mosque goes along with the past history of Islam.” Islam destroyed other cultures and their religious symbols and erected mosques on the holy sites of its victims: in Jerusalem there is the Dome of the Rock and the El Aksa mosque built on the site where the Jewish holy temple (destroyed by the Romans, later conquered by Muslims) stood; these mosques are not known for promoting tolerance and understanding.  Thousands of Christian Churches and Hindu temples were converted into mosques upon conquest by Muslims, exemplified by the Sancta Sofia in Constantinople.  Muslims intentionally destroyed two magnificent Buddha statues in Afghanistan (2001) on orders from Mullah Mohammad Omar for no justifiable reason other than the Taliban declared them to be “idols” – an offense to Islam under sharia law.

Building this mosque is not akin to the experiences of colonial America, as Norvell contends,  but to the Carmelite nuns building a convent at Aushwitz in the 1980s and their building a huge cross – the Pope’s Cross. – and smaller crosses.  Terrible consequences resulted from those deliberate and disgraceful actions of Catholic triumphalism.   The convent was moved.  The issue of the crosses is partially resolved and a constant cause of religiously induced rancor.

Retired firefighter Jack McLaughlin said: “Part of the  plane landed (here)” referring to the area where the mosque is to be erected.  The pilots, with malice aforethought, were Muslims on a holy mission intent on destruction.  Therefore, that area may be considered part of Ground Zero, not just near Ground Zero.

Thus, the case could be made that anyone supporting the building of the mosque in that particular place is working to undermine the American republic and the greatest experiment in democracy the world ever experienced.

The issue is not Americans not having sensitivity to Islam but Islam demonstrating its sensitivity to American concerns.

The question becomes: How far away from Ground Zero should the mosque be built?  My answer: far enough away so that Ground Zero cannot be seen from any of its windows or its roof top.

SG

(He gave his full name, address, phone number and e-mail address which he asked me not to make public for now.)

Recently Nancy Ratzan, President of the National Council of Jewish Women released a statement urging the Jewish people, during this ten day period – Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur – dedicated to introspection and decision making to rededicate their efforts to leading a good life with social justice as one of the highest priorities.  The precipitating event that led to this statement was what she perceived to be an “escalating bias and violence directed at the American Muslim community.” She said: “Let us heed Isaiah’s call to cry out with a ‘full throat and without restraint’ against the injustice of persecution and discrimination against our Muslim neighbors.”

For the record, NCJW “is a grassroots organization of volunteers and advocates who turn progressive ideals into action.” “Inspired by Jewish values, NCJW strives for social justice by improving the quality of life for women, children, and families and by safeguarding individual rights and freedoms.”

It is very difficult for anyone to disagree with such noble thoughts nor should any one want to disagree.  Certainly any American who understands what this great nation truly stands for does not want to engage in hate or tolerate discrimination against any ethnic/religious/sexual orientation etc. group.

With that being said, I find that the statement of the NCJW is too parochial and too confining.  Thus, I sent the following e-mail to
Sammie Moshenberg, Director of Washington Operations  of the NCJW.

Sammie Moshenberg
Director of Washington Operations
National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW)

Yes, during Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Jews should reflect on being a force for progressive social change.  However If we are going to work against injustice perhaps we should consider working against the injustices inflicted by Islam against women (stoning!) and the rest of the world.  Perhaps we should work against Islam engaging in horrific deeds such as beheading innocent Jews such as Daniel Pearl, or the issuing of Fatwas (death threats) against intellectuals such as Salmon Rushdie or anyone else who any Iman, at anytime and any place, decides has insulted Islam or is interfering with Islam achieving its aims, or their killing of Van Gogh, or demanding that of teaching and preaching hate and recruiting people to become suicide bombers and paying their families thousands of dollars for raising children who then blow themselves up in public places while murdering innocent people including children, or raining thousands of missiles on our fellow Jews in Israel etc.

In the name of social justice perhaps we should work to educate the world that Islam, in its current form, is a cancer in the world which if not confronted by those of us who are truly interested in social and political justice will continue to metastasize and spread its toxicity
throughout the world.

Perhaps such efforts on our part would help bring about the reformation in Islam that is so badly needed so that it can live at peace with people who think or believe differently.