MUSLIM FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION: NOW WIDELY AVAILABLE IN THE GOOD OLD USA!

A RELIGION WHICH MUTILATES LITTLE GIRLS

My first encounter with FGM (female genital mutilation) occurred in 1980, when I asked an Egyptian man working in my office in Saudi Arabia what his plans for the weekend were.  The Egyptian, whose name was Abdul-Gawad, replied that he was taking his ten-year-old daughter to "...have her clitoris fixed so that she would be a good bride."  "Abdul-Gawad," I responded, "Surely you can't do that to your little girl!"  "Oh, Mr. John," he answered, "this is a very important thing for us in Islam."

Each year, probably more than 3,000,000 girls throughout the Middle East and Africa will be in danger of having  FGM performed on them, usually taking the form of a clitoridectomy.  An even more radical form of FGM, which is practiced mainly in Africa, is infibulation, in which all external genitalia are removed and the two sides of the vulva are stitched together.

Despite the insistence of Muslim apologists that the practices are more tribal than religious, the fact remains that FGM is concentrated in 28 Muslim countries.  Even in Iraqi Kurdistan, studies have shown that 65% of Kurdish girls will undergo some painful and demeaning form of FGM.

It is sad to say that in my own country of the United States and despite  federal and state laws that forbid it, FGM is affecting the lives of young girls.  As long ago as 1997, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that 168,000 girls and women residing in this country already had or were in danger of being subjected to FGM.  More recent estimates, taking into consideration the growth of Muslim population, have it that more than 300,000 girls in the U.S. each year may potentially fall victim to FGM.  In an effort to circumvent legalities, no small number of Muslims residing in this country take their daughters outside our boundaries for what is euphemistically called "vacation cutting."

In April of 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics raised a firestorm of criticism, when it revised its policy on FGM.  The new policy was based on an assumption that American laws forbidding FGM had resulted in more and more vacation cutting done outside the country.  Suggesting that approving a "ceremonial nick" might help limit  drastic cutting on foreign soil, the AAP, roiling from critics who vociferously stated that even a nick would give credence to barbarism, quickly abandoned its unwise new policy statement.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

For those seeking a more in-depth and personal interpretation of FGM, Infidel, a work by  Dutch politician and writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali could be enlightening.  Ms. Ali, who was born into Islam in Somalia, eventually immigrated to the Netherlands, where she received her education, obtained Dutch citizenship and in 2002 renounced Islam.  Along the way, she was elected to the Dutch parliament and was cited in 2005 by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

In controversial public statements, Hirsi Ali has stated that Prophet Mohamed, by today's standards, would be considered a pedophile and that Islam was taking the form of 21st century fascism.   Her view on excision, as expressed in her book, was a strong condemnation:  "Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure.  The excision of women is cruel on many levels.  It is physically cruel and painful; it sets up girls for a lifetime of suffering.  And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

It was Hirsi Ali who collaborated with Theo Van Gough in producing the film Submission, which exposed the abuse of women in the Muslim world.  After Van Gough's murder by one Mohamed Bouyeri and because of a death-threat to Hirsi Ali found on Van Gough's body, she was forced to go into hiding.  By 2005, she reentered public life, continuing to speak out for Western values, while questioning the wisdom of allowing more Muslim immigration into Dutch society.

Might we learn something from Ayaan Hirsi Ali?  Is it really prudent and sensible to admit all comers into our country, especially those who bring cultures, practices and traditions inimical to our own?  Do we wish to give leave to enter to those who will only bring problems into our society?  Surely, those of us who are sane must answer these questions with a resounding "NO!"

SIKENEH MOHAMEDI ASHTIANI & WOMEN'S "RIGHTS" UNDER ISLAM: AMERICAN FEMINISTS, WHERE ARE YOU?

Sikeneh Mohamedi Ashtiani

Sikenah Mohamedi Ashtiani, after years in prison, is still under a death sentence in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Iran, you might recall, as a stalwart defender of human rights, recently tried unsuccessfully to obtain membership on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. 

A widow with two children, Ms. Ashtiani was charged with adultery, even though her supposed offense occurred after the death of her husband.  Originally sentenced by a lower court in Azerbaijan during 2006,  Ashtiani was punished with 99 lashes, in the presence of her teenage son.

Several months later, the case was reopened by a higher court, which eventually sentenced Ms. Ashtiani to death by stoning, even though, as a Turkish speaker, Ashtiani could not comprehend the court proceedings, which were conducted in Farsi. Perhaps reacting to demonstrations in Europe, Iran took a more "lenient" position, raising the possibility that Ms. Ashtiani might have her sentence commuted to death by hanging.

Not many Americans viewed the film "The Stoning of Sorayah M.," which was produced from a book of the same title by the French-Iranian journalist and war correspondent Freidone Salebjam.  The true story recounts a visit by Salebjam to Iran, during which his car broke down in a remote village.  While waiting for repairs, Salebjam was approached by the aunt of a young mother and wife who, a few years previously, had been buried to the waist in the village square and suffered death by stoning. Salebjam was informed by the aunt how Sorayah M. (the stoning victim) had endured the plots of a husband who had wanted to rid himself of her in order to marry a younger woman, without any subsequent financial obligations to to Sorayah and her children.  With the help of the local mullah  and the village mayor, trumped up charges were brought against Sorayah, who then experienced the ultimate horror of Sharia law. 

Encouraged by Sorayah's aunt, Salebjam eventually realized that Sorayah's only hope for justice was to tell the world of her martyrdom.  Barely escaping from the village elders, Salebjam eventually returned to France, where he was able to publish "The Stoning of Sorayah M."

In 2009, Salebjam's book finally made its way to the silver screen.  Although it was honored by the Toronto Film Festival, the film never played to large audiences in the U.S.  Nevertheless, it is a film of great emotion and reveals what apparently many Americans are unaware of:  namely, that women in many Muslim countries are subject to the most depraved and nefarious of legal systems which stem from Sharia law, law that not only tyrannizes and represses them but, on occasion, subjects them to the brutality of stoning.

www.jihadwatch.org

From the standpoint of one who spent several years in a Muslim country and one who is also grateful for the foresight of our Founders and for the precious guarantees in our Constitution, the book and film will, hopefully, eventually have a wider audience.  Perhaps those most in need of Sorayah's story are American feminists and their liberal allies in the Democratic Party's "progressive" leadership, who seem to take pleasure in branding those who would question the wisdom of Muslim influence in the U.S. as "Islamophobes."  Looked at another way. it would seem that the current administration and many of its followers in Washington are suffering from a severe case of "Islamophilia," which has so beguiled them that they are even unable to bring themselves to utter the dreaded words of "Islamic terrorism."

Perhaps it is not so hard to believe that a country which goes by the oxymoronic name of "Islamic Republic" can prescribe such atrocious penalties.  But it is difficult to believe that an American government would continue to seek a relationship that would have any value with the likes of Ahmaddinejad and the mad mullahs in Tehran.

Certainly, one would never wish to totally bring to an end the immigration of a single group into the U.S., for we should welcome any and all who come to these shores with a desire to work and to meld with our country's language, traditions, and culture and who arrive with a validated appreciation of our political institutions and our Constitution.  That being said, it also goes without saying that we are truly involved in a war with a world-wide network of Islamic terrorists.  It is only logical, therefore, that American immigration policies should reflect this reality, and any individuals seeking to enter this nation from Muslim lands should be subject to intense scrutiny.  

CAN'T WAIT FOR ROMANCE & ARABIAN NIGHTS? LET'S PLAY DRESS-UP, MY DEAR!

Ah, the dream!

The 1991 film "Not Without my Daughter," which featured Sally Field as Betty Mahmoody, an idealistic and trusting wife of an Iranian-American doctor, touched on a painful subject for an increasing number of American families, namely. the heartbreak caused by Muslim fathers in foreign lands preventing their American children from returning to the United States.

Then, the reality?

Following coverage of the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon, I could not help but think back over my years in Saudi Arabia, when I saw not a few disillusioned American women fleeing from marriages with Saudi Muslim husbands.  The saddest aspect of those break-ups concerned children with American citizenship who were forced to remain in Saudi Arabia, owing to Saudi Sharia law, which gave complete control over their lives to their Muslim fathers.

Katherine Russell, Wife of Accused Bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev

And then there were the photos of Katherine Russell, the wife of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the young Chechen who subsequently fell mortally wounded in a shoot-out with police.  What possessed a young American woman, I asked myself, to don the hijab and ally herself with a belief system which stands in such complete opposition to the freedom and liberty which have been the linchpins of  American society?

Alas, I thought, perhaps the answer could be found through a thorough examination of the American psyche in the 21st century. Somehow, I couldn't help thinking that such an assessment would reveal that, since Americans believe so passionately that they are world citizens; it is not a quantum leap in logic to surmise that their naive trust in toleration and faith in diversity as strengths must mean to them that others from totally different cultures would happily accept their values.  Unfortunately, that is not how the world turns.

In 1950, the seminal sociological analysis "The Lonely Crowd" was published by David Riesman, Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney.  In this work, it was pointed out that, increasingly, American society was dominated by "other-directed" people, who could only distinguish themselves and their beliefs by virtue of how those beliefs were delineated by society at large. Thus, American society no longer had the impetus to adhere to conventions and customs that had previously served as its bonding elements. The result would eventually be a spreading anomie, and a societal rootlessness suggesting breakdown.

Could it be that an expanding anomie has produced  more and more rootless people who are susceptible to the firmness of conviction of individuals coming from less developed societies with belief systems in direct opposition to what had once been robust American traditions?  Could young American women sauntering about under cover of hijabs and abbayas be symptomatic of  a deep malaise and a societal crisis of the first order? These possibilities are worth considering in light of the fates of numerous children holding American citizenship, who are being held in Muslim countries which do not recognize international agreements such as the Hague Abduction  Accords.

Despite frequent congressional hearings and efforts undertaken by public figures such as Representative Dan Burton, whose 2009 trip to Saudi Arabia in behalf of children abducted to that country was unceremoniously rebuffed, little or no progress has occurred in these sad cases  Perhaps young American women should consider the long-term consequences of Muslim-American mating before they slip on the garb of exotic places.  All too frequently, those dreams of the romance of the Arabian nights morph into Arabian nightmares.

HISTORIC ST. MARK'S CHURCH ATTACKED BY RAGING MUSLIM MOB

During my first trip to Egypt in 1980, my friends in Cairo escorted me to Old Cairo and the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus, supposedly the site of the exile of the Holy Family.  Old Cairo, or Coptic Cairo, contains various locations venerated by the Coptic Orthodox Church, which traces its origins to 42 A.D. and credits St. Mark (the author of the Second Gospel) as its founder. Today, although most people would consider Egypt a Muslim country, its population includes almost 9,000,000 Copts.

While walking through the narrow passageways of Old Cairo, I encountered a fellow Christian, a Copt, who engaged me in conversation, relating what it was like for him as a member of a religious minority to live in Egypt.  To say that the conversation was enlightening would be an understatement.  At that point, I was totally unaware of the persecution faced by Egyptian Christians.  I surmise in looking back that I had heard of Butros-Butros Gali, an Egyptian Christian who had served as Secretary General of the United Nations, but I was ignorant as to how most Egyptian Christians daily faced maltreatment and discrimination in education and in qualifying for employment in the public sector.

St. Mark's Church Burning

The recollection of that long-ago conversation came back to me this month when I learned of the Muslim attack on April 9th on Cairo's St. Mark's Cathedral, which contains the reliquary housing the remains of St. Mark.  Of course, there was no mention of this outrage in our head-in-the sand American news media, which seem to prefer the coziness of playing the Dodo in an Alice in Wonderland approach to the dissemination of what now passes as "news."

 

Masked Man in US Taxpayer-Funded Armored Vehicle Prepares to
Fire on St. Mark's Cathedral

Contrary to the Polyanna Principle peddled by the present administration that the new Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo would usher in a new day of enlightened behavior, the lot of Egyptian Christians has deteriorated.  But what would one expect with a Muslim Brotherhood president such as Mohamed Morsi at the helm, spouting off such claptrap as "Israelis are the descendants of apes and pigs" ...who are nothing but "warmongers and bloodsuckers"? Ironically, Morsi, who has lately hamstrung what was left of the Egyptian judiciary, was educated at the University of Southern California.

In an effort to keep the peace in the Middle East, the U.S.has made Egypt, since the Camp David Accords, number two on the list of foreign aid recipients.   Annually, more than 1.5 billion dollars in aid is spent on Egypt.  With the rise of Islamic extremism and the coming to power of the radical Muslim Brotherhood, American policymakers might like to reconsider whether this expenditure of OUR funds is a good investment.  At the very least, we should expect that those who formulate foreign policy should be standing up for human rights and religious toleration.  After all, wouldn't this be the "politically-correct" thing to do?

ASIA BIBI: CHRISTIAN MARTYR IN MUSLIM PAKISTAN

In 2009, in the Pakistani Village of Ittan Wali, a 38-year-old Christian farmhand, Asia Noreen Bibi, was asked to bring water for her fellow workers, all Muslims.  Complying with this request, Asia carried drinking water to the field, only to find that the Muslims were reluctant to drink water that had been borne by  Christian hands. A heated exchange ensued, and Asia reputedly said, "Christ Jesus has died for my sins!  What has Prophet Mohammed done for you?"

After word of the confrontation was taken to a local  Muslim cleric, a mob attacked Asia and her family.  Subsequently, charges of "blasphemy" were levied at Asia, who was convicted and sentenced to death.  Since that time, she has been confined in a filthy and crime-ridden Pakistani prison, suffering  numerous privations, while her conviction is being appealed through  an arduous legal system.

For Americans, it is patently absurd that a young Christian woman could be sentenced to death for blasphemy in the 21st century.  Nevertheless, this is by no means an isolated situation in the Muslim world. As I write this, a young Iranian-American Christian pastor, Saeed Abedini, is still incarcerated in Iran's notorious hellhole, Evin Prison. His crime:  being a Christian pastor in Iran.

On numerous occasions, I have challenged American Muslims to speak out against these and other examples of religious persecution in Muslim countries.  My pleas, however, have fallen on deaf ears.  In considering the cause of their silence, I can only conclude that American Muslims are fearful of retribution from radical Islamists, or else are not voicing objections out of religious conviction.  In the meantime, they continue to enjoy the religious freedom on these shores which is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

During the last 12 years, Pakistan has been the recipient  of more than 19 billion dollars in American aid.  For the last fiscal year alone, American taxpayers poured more than 1.5 billion dollars into Pakistan.  Yes, my fellow Americans, these are OUR dollars that are being sent to a country that practices religious persecution on a large scale.  As those who are footing the bill, it is more than proper that we should express our displeasure with a country that offends our sense of right and wrong with its 15th century view of human rights.  Accordingly, please consider joining a mass movement to besiege the Embassy of Pakistan with letters and email protesting the treatment of Asia Noreen Bibi.  The appropriate contacts are:

Embassy of Pakistan
3517 International Ct.                     Or, email:  info@embassyofpakistanusa.org
Washington, D.C. 20008

Judging from past actions, Pakistan will no doubt be resistant to our efforts; however, right-thinking human beings must make sure that Asia Bibi is not forgotten.

"MADNESS! MADNESS!": OR, THE TWO PHOTOGRAPHS OF NIDAL HASAN

I shall never forget the the powerful words spoken by James Donald's character, Major Clipton, at the end of the blockbuster 1950's film "Bridge Over the River Kwai."  Surveying death and destruction, Clipton could only cry out, "Madness! Madness!"

As I consider two photographs of Nidal Hassan and as I ponder how my country has arrived at the strange state of affairs characterizing its handling of the threat of domestic Islamic terrorism, I, too, want to shout, "Madness! Madness!"

As you might recall, Hasan is the U.S. Army psychiatrist holding the rank of Major, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 2013 for killing 13 and wounding 32 individuals - all the while shouting "Allahu Akbar!" - 9 years ago at Ft. Hood in Texas.

After the completion of high school in Roanoke, Virginia, Hasan joined the Army and participated in government programs enabling him to graduate with a degree in biochemistry from Virginia Tech.  The Army then allowed him to complete a medical degree from the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, courtesy of American taxpayers.  After an internship at Walter Reed Military Hospital, Major Hasan somehow qualified as a psychiatrist.

Although he was the son of Palestinian Muslim parents who had immigrated from the West Bank, the young Nidal gave no indication while growing up that he would transform from the version seen at the upper left to the demented-looking bearded figure on the right.  Nevertheless, there were suggestions in his behavior as an intern that Nidal was "not quite right."  Later, from derogatory comments about the United States and its role in the Muslim world, some colleagues questioned whether Major Hasan was an appropriate fit for the armed forces of the United States.

After the shootings at Ft. Hood, Chief of Staff General George Casey spoke out in such a manner that demonstrated that his major concern was that Major Hasan's actions would not negatively affect the cause of diversity in the armed forces.  At the same time, Anwar al-Alwaki (subsequently, a predator drone victim in Yemen) and various al-Quaeda figures were praising Hasan, calling him a hero to all Muslims. Remarkably, the Army would categorize the Ft. Hood massacre as "workplace violence."  Even more outlandish was the Army's decision that those wounded at Ft. Hood were not eligible for the Purple Heart, even though they had fallen victim at an army post to a combatant who had enlisted himself in the cause of Islamic terrorism.  And now, almost 9 years after the fact, Nidal Hasan has not yet had his punishment meted out through military justice.

At this point some key questions should be asked:
1.  Why do we not recognize the signs of Islamic extremism?
2.  Why do we not do a better job of protecting our citizens and our military from Islamic extremism?
3.  Why do we give carte blanche admittance to this country to Muslim "students?"
4.  Why do we extend welfare benefits to Muslim immigrants who voice anti-American sentiments?
5.  Why do taxpayers pay tuition from the undergraduate level to doctoral  studies for Muslims who wouldlike to kill "infidels?"
6.  Why do we do all of the above in the name of "diversity?"

And, while we are at it, let's take it a step further:
Why do we continue the enormous purchases of foreign oil from countries that bankroll terrorism?

To my mind, the two photographs of Major Nidal Hasan are enlightening, not only about Hasan himself but also about Islam and its potential for a distorting and wicked influence on susceptible personalities.  One would think that our policy-makers would recognize that present guidelines in these matters are in shambles and augur nothing but havoc for the future.  But alas, dear readers, I can only conclude that they are afflicted by "Madness! Madness!"

Deo Vindice!

John B. is a former history professor, dean and provost in higher education.

INNOCENTS ABROAD: WHO CARES ABOUT BENGHAZI, ANYWAY?

How embarrassed I was when I saw photographs of the president of my country bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.  Having lived for six years in the Kingdom and having met and interacted with a couple of that land's some 5,000 princes of the royal blood, I had passed the muster of protocol by simply nodding and politely shaking hands while saying, "Sir, I am honored to meet you."

As citizens of a republic, we do not acknowledge any sort of fealty to royalty by deed or by word.  Indeed, it was a quandary in the early history of our republic as to how our presidents would be addressed.  Appropriately, the practice was sanctioned that we would refer to the holder of our highest office as "Mr. President."  This custom embodies the spirit of a republic in which, at least theoretically, no man is above the law.

Unfortunately, it is more and more common to find authorities at the highest levels of our government who seem totally unfamiliar with history and how their lack of knowledge, along with the  symbolism which they mangle or ignore, redounds to the disadvantage of their fellow citizens.  A case in point is that of Lieutenant  General (retired) James Clapper, who serves the present administration in Washington as Director of National Intelligence.

It was General Clapper who, during the ill-fated "Egyptian Spring" of early 2011, demonstrated the depth and breadth of his "intelligence" by defining the Muslim Brotherhood as an "umbrella term for a variety of movements...a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence...."  Oh, my goodness, where was the good general when the political science courses he received credit for at the University of Maryland and St. Mary's were covering  the Middle East?  Apparently, the general was never familiar with the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood: "The Koran is our law, and Jihad is our way."  Neither, it seems, was he familiar with numerous acts by the Brotherhood against secular Egyptian governments, including the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

With greenhorns like General Clapper riding herd on our Middle East intelligence, it is remarkable that there have not been even more blunders, as if Benghazi itself was not failure enough to deep-six most administrations. Would it not be feasible for our National Intelligence Director to have been considering what the role of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood might have been in next-door Libya? Was Clapper even aware that there was an American consulate located in Benghazi?  And, will our government ever come clean with its citizens as to what actually happened at Benghazi?

In 100 years hence, what will historians considering the American Republic have to say about its citizens and their government?  That they were derailed by contentious social issues and neglected basics such as foreign affairs, the economy and defense; and, along the way, allowed bumblers and stumblers to shape crucial policy?  That the great goal of "E Pluribus Unum" was shattered by greed and selfishness, so that the Republic, splintered into a melange of snarling interest groups, lapsed into a system of autocracy and discarded its constitution?  May God forbid!

Wisdom is before him that hath understanding; but the eyes of a fool are in the ends of the earth,
Proverbs 17: 24

DELUSIONAL POLITICAL CORRECTNESS & THE TROJAN HORSE OF ISLAM

The late Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard University famously pointed out in his stellar work, THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS, that throughout  history on any occasion that Islam has abutted the West it has become extremely aggressive.  Certainly, the result of such aggression may be viewed in the Balkans, where Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia are called to mind.

While serving as a provost in the State University of New York during the 1990's, a visiting professor from the Republic of Macedonia related to me how the inflow of Muslims was rapidly changing the culture and character of his country. At that time, out of a total population of 2,000,000, Muslims numbered 700,000.  With Muslim birthrates outstripping those of Christians, it was his fear that his native land would soon be just another Muslim dagger pointed at the heart of Europe and Western Civilization.

The total Muslim population of Europe (including Russia) now surpasses 50,000,000.  The most common name chosen for baby boys in Belgium these days is Mohammed.  In Britain and France there are Muslim suburbs in which it is not safe for unveiled women to stroll the streets.  Oftentimes, in cities such as Marseilles and Toulouse, spillovers from Mosques during Salah (prayer time) tie up traffic and inconvenience neighborhoods.

For those keeping score in the United States, more than 3,100 persons have been killed on American soil by Muslim terrorists since 1972.  Yet, of the approximately 4,700,000 Muslims (estimated by the Pew Research Center) and the more than 2,100 mosques in the United States, little or nothing is heard in the way of condemnations of these horrendous acts of violence.

Over the years, thousands of Americans abroad have been attacked, maimed and murdered, from Beirut to North Africa, to Lockerbie and Tehran.  Muslim terrorists make no bones about it:  they are out to kill infidels and especially Americans.  In effect, dear readers, we are at war.

Meanwhile, on the home front (in the name of diversity), those in power  lecture us with words of pablum on how we must always remember that our attackers are not truly representative of this third great monotheistic religion and the countries dominated by Islam, where almost daily non-Muslim martyrs are imprisoned and tortured on  bogus charges of "blasphemy."

Is it not madness, dear readers, to fail to recognize the dangers which we continue to import into the United States?  Does it not fail the test of reason to hesitate to alter immigration regulations to impede the flow of individuals from lands and religions that might seek to do us harm?  Is it not irrational to attempt to put the brakes on Muslim "students," who become even more radicalized in our own country?  Are our policy makers so ignorant of history that they do not know that Syed Qutub, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and his followers have, from that organization's earliest days, called for the downfall of the "Great Satan?"  Are we not, on a very large scale, building our own Trojan Horse?

And, finally, have I not by my own obvious disregard of the orthodoxy of "political correctness" shown myself to be a totally irredeemable bigot?  Oh, how I long for the days when at least some degree of reason held sway in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

RACISM!!! RACISM!!!

Having seen a great deal of the world over the years,  I eventually concluded that most places are far more racist than the United States.  For example, even with our neighbor to the south, Mexico, color-consciousness reigns supreme.  And this is especially evident for Mexicans of pure, indigenous extraction.

One of our friends in San Miguel de Allende was a remarkable woman who had left her ancestral Tarahumara homeland at the base of Copper Canyon and had immigrated to the United States, where she had learned English, taken a nursing degree at Texas Women's University and had studied anthropology at SMU.  Eventually, she joined the United States Navy and had retired with the rank of commander.  When she settled into San Miguel to enjoy her retirement, we made her acquaintance and felt privileged to have her as a friend.  However, as Americans, we were shocked by comments directed toward our friend by Mexicans on several occasions when we were at public events with her. In conversations concerning such experiences, our friend expressed that unpleasant instances of a  racial nature were far more likely to happen in Mexico than in the United States.

All things considered about its racial mix, the United States is probably the most racially tolerant society in the world.  Yet, despite this, there are "leaders" of various groups that have made their own very profitable cottage industries based on racial division and invective.  Consequently, we have arrived at a point in our history when civil discourse about different points of view in such areas such as politics, economics, education and even national defense are almost impossible, owing to the strident cries of "Racism!! Racism!!"

The 1960's were a time of confrontation and ferment in Nashville, while I was a graduate student at Vanderbilt University.  Not only was there student activism concerning the war in Vietnam, students at Vanderbilt joined hands with their brothers and sisters at Fisk and Tennessee State to protest palpable inequality in the treatment of the races.  Our goals were very simple:  equality of opportunity and inclusion.  But now, sadly, I see a country that is devoid of optimism and idealism about the unity of human beings.  Instead of "Hope and Change," we now see "Divide and Politicize."

As a young, twenty-something idealist more than forty years ago, it would have been unbelievable if someone had told me that in 2013 there would be Black and Hispanic Congressional caucuses that would not be open to other groups.  Even more unbelievable would have been the idea that these kinds of groups would be hurling charges of racism at other congressional groups, such as the Tea Party Caucus, which has gladly and appropriately accepted representatives in Congress into their midst from various groups, not on the basis on race but on that of ideology.

At this stage of the game, it might just be a fair question to ask, "Just who are the racists?"  From whatever side, racism is racism.  I don't know about you, but I am entirely sick of "Racism!! Racism!!"

"FITNA:" WE MUST NOT FORGET!

See the uncut version of Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilder's disturbing film:  www.vimeo.com/20710133

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: QUO VADIS?

Having grown up under the guarantees of the Constitution of the United States of America, I pretty much took for granted the religious freedom that I experienced while growing up in a small town in the upper South/lower Midwest.  Most of my circle of friends was made up of Protestants of one shade or another; nevertheless, Roman Catholics and even some Jews were included.  Although we were exposed in our religious training to different theologies and creeds, none of these differences impeded the friendships which were formed.

No doubt, the naivete of my youth probably led me to think that most human beings operated on the basis of toleration and acceptance of diversity.  It was only through experience and extended matriculation in higher education that I became convinced that my country and its exceptional constitution had favored me with freedoms that were in short supply in most of the world.

After a career of twelve years as an associate professor at Jacksonville State University in Alabama, I took the drastic step of signing a contract with King Saud University in Saudi Arabia, where I would spend six years as an associate professor and advisor in a higher education setting that was far different than anything that I had previously experienced.  Despite some early misgivings about the wisdom of my move, I quickly settled into my new responsibilities, which centered around converting the university to the American credit-hour system.

Before traveling to Saudi Arabia, I was well aware that Islam was the ONLY religion that was permitted in the country.  However, as a Christian and as a regular at Sunday services in the United States, I did, not, perhaps, anticipate how I would feel when faced with the reality of a lack of religious freedom.

During my second year as an expatriate in the Kingdom, I discovered a Christian fellowship which met secretly on Fridays (the Muslim holy day).  Led by an Armenian-American Presbyterian pastor, who had surreptitiously entered Saudi Arabia under the guise of being an engineer, expatriates of various national origins worshiped on the McDonald/Douglas compound in Riyadh.  Eventually (after my departure from the country), Saudi authorities would learn of the fellowship, arrest its leaders and expel them from Saudi Arabia.

Arab Christians working in Saudi Arabia faced the harsh prospect of imprisonment for practicing their faith. But, despite that, I recall several Palestinians who regularly worshiped with other Christians in the fellowship.

I emerged from my six years in Saudi Arabia with a heightened awareness of the concept of religious freedom  and attendant issues.  No longer would I naively assume that the precious freedoms that I had enjoyed as an American would firmly and forever be available for all comers.  And I was deeply aware of the plight of fellow Christians, whose faith made them daily walk a precarious line between security and deprivation in Muslim countries.

Lately, I cannot help but be concerned that more and more immigrants from Muslim countries have entered the United States.  Certainly, I would wish to extend the freedoms of my country to these newcomers.  However, as an American who seeks to preserve these freedoms for all, I have a right to expect that they, in turn, value the traditions, customs and practices that have stood the test of time and made our country great. In other words, I shudder to my very foundations when I hear words of hate being shouted from mosques located in large urban centers of the United States.

With more than 2,300 mosques now operating in the United States and 80% of them promoting Wahabism, the most rigid variety of Islam, there is, indeed, cause for concern.  And, lest we forget, CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, was deeply involved in the infamous Holy Land Foundation case, in which it was conclusively proved that funds which were supposedly collected for philanthropic purposes were being funneled to HAMAS.

At the same time, our own government is now seemingly bent on causing distress for those of us who prize religious freedom by forcing provisions of the new health care legislation that many Christians find repugnant on the populace as a whole.  Let us be ever vigilant to any and all threats that could limit this precious freedom from whatever quarter they might emerge.  With an administration that does not see our country as exceptional, religious freedom may well be viewed by our leaders as something relative to politics and time and place.  As Americans, we should know better!

Religious freedom: Quo Vadis?

Terrorism and Islam in the USA

Having lived in what is probably the most Islamic country in the world for six years (Saudi Arabia), I feel that  I (as much as anyone) have the right - no, even the responsibility -  to speak out. Accordingly, much of this blogspot will henceforth be devoted to posts which will discuss the inconsistencies and  dangers of  of the uninformed and unsophisticated governmental policies which now hold sway in the United States of America.

During my time on the Arabian Peninsula, I gradually learned rudimentary Arabic.  Finally, after two years, I began to understand the shouting emanating out of the speaker systems attached to the minarets on Riyadh mosques.  My epiphany occurred one Friday morning while walking by a mosque, when I comprehended the spoken Arabic blasting the airwaves with a sheikh's sermon.  Essentially, what was being said was that Muslims must eventually drive Christians and Jews into the sea.  As I pondered those words for the rest of the day, I began to think about the development of civilizations and the timelines involved.  And, in a flash of insight, I remembered that the Islamic calendar was in its 15th century.  With that in mind, I recalled what excesses and barbarities had taken place in my own Western Civilization during its 15th century.  Islam had not experienced a Renaissance, a Reformation, or an Enlightenment.  It was stuck in the 15th century, and Riyadh might as well be Calvin's Geneva.  In other words, all the "political correctness" and diversity consciousness in the world would ever substitute for centuries of societal and historical development.

No, dear readers, unlike the "Kumbayah" policies so in vogue on the left, Islam must be faced with a strong dose of reality.  With probably 10% of  Muslims in the world supporting radical Islam, we are confronting more than 150 million believers who would like nothing better than to see our nation succumb to terrorism and a diminished role in world affairs. As for the majority of Muslims living in the United States, we rarely hear them speak out with condemnations of their radical brethren, probably owing to their widespread fear of retaliation.

With an administration that is even reluctant to utter the word "terrorism," we are doing nothing but handicapping ourselves and foolishly supporting policies that make it more difficult to protect Americans.  Pat Buchannan's 2010 bestseller was entitled "Suicide of a Super-Power."  From all appearances, our cultural suicide continues unabated.  Wake up, America!

LET US REMEMBER THE VICTIMS OF THE MOST RECENT TERROR ATTACK IN OUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!