In fairness, Robert may have a point
As I had stated at the onset of this email Joann, at the bottom of this email to you appearing below the line of asterisks is an excerpt regarding potential problems with political Islam from an email that I had sent to Robert back on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:30 PM. To my knowledge, I never received anything back from him regarding that email whatsoever. I may have missed it, but as far as I know he did not take issue anything stated therein. This of course is quite unlike what he had said previously to you. It was his disbelief that foreign nationals who had illegally crossed our USA borders would ever leave a mess at the border, much less a mess that could be photographed; or, that actual [the "real deal"] radical Islamofascists/Islamo-nazis of political Islam in London would ever dare to be photographed holding up signs made by one sign maker using same or similar font that suggested their displeasure with Americans. [CNN International editors, reporters, and photographers would no doubt beg to differ, but what the heck would they know about what happened in London back in 2006 compared to Robert! see: 'Suicide bomb' protester arrested]
Robert may have a point though. Why would the more radical proponents of political Islam use hand-held signs to convey their hatred of Western culture and desire to destroy all those who refuse to submit to their religious beliefs when their actions and subsequent photos of the respective aftermath could do far more in getting their message across? I think their actions got their message across, at least, to your son Bill first-hand when he was at one of the US embassies [at the time of this writing, I can't remember which one] that had just been attacked before he came upon the scene. While he was still there, or shortly thereafter, he described to you the aftermath of body parts and blood spattered on remaining walls. Along with a picture of that embassy, here are some other pictures of what some have inexplicably forgotten. These photos manifest what I am trying to describe and the recurring message conveyed from political Islam on US soil and other parts of the world:
Here is a list of some, but not certainly all of the hundreds of Islamofascist terrorist attacks that murdered thousands of people committed on both US and foreign soil:
* Airliner highjackings, World Trade Center and Pentagon attack (2001)
* USS Cole attacked by two Islamofascists in a boat filled with explosives (2000)
* First World Trade Center Attack (1993)
* Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya (1998)
* The attack at CIA HQ by Mir Aimal Kansi (1993)
* The failed NYC Landmark Bomb Plot (1993)
* Brooklyn Bridge Shooting of Hasidic Seminary student by Rashid Baz (1994)
* 2 American Consulate workers killed and another wounded in Karachi (1995)
* Khobar Towers Bombing with 19 dead and many more wounded (1996)
"Art Of War" author Sun Tsu: "know the enemy"
Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum: "know the enemy." Many of us, who I'll call "we" from hereon under this topic, "know the enemy" is not bound by borders of any county. We "know the enemy" hides itself in the midst of many others, whether in numerous countries throughout the world or right here in the US. We "know the enemy" in the US is relatively small in number in that many of whom claim to have submitted themselves to [a]llah know not of the intolerant, unforgiving obedience demanded by the doctrine of political Islam and all that it entails. We "know the enemy" knows that in order to come to this deeper fundamental understanding and true appreciation, the first step is the submission of oneself to Islam. We "know the enemy" knows it can slowly grow its numbers through its fundamental teachings. We "know the enemy" is patient yet relentless and will never tire. We "know the enemy" in some cases has taken centuries to achieve victory. We "know the enemy," aside from a few exceptions, look like they are from the Middle East, that is to say, Arab. We "know the enemy," in terms of appearance alone, knows that its minions are indistinguishable from others of Middle Eastern origin. We "know the enemy" is not an idiot nor are its soldiers and they will take advantage of being indistinguishable every chance they get. We "know the enemy" knows that its path to ultimate victory will not normally be by armed, frontal assault. We "know the enemy" knows that it is no military match for the USA and that it could not vanquish our forces on any conventional front. We "know the enemy" knows that it must conquer its foe from within and destroy the very fabric of its might. We "know the enemy" knows it must be patient, to the point of lying dormant for years, awaiting opportune moments wherein to strike. We "know the enemy" to the extent that its ultimate goal is to have its foe submit or die.
If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
- Sun Tzu
We "know the enemy" knows that it has a tremendous, although hopefully unwitting ally residing right here in the USA. No, this ally won't actively assist in plots, plant bombs, spread poison around schools, attach explosives to themselves to commit mass murder, or fly airplanes as missiles or pilot boats to become torpedoes. No, because the enemy knows their ally's secret role, or secret mission if you will, and despite its ally's ignorance of it, is of far greater importance than partaking in any of these types of terrorist activities. The "mission" whether their ally realizes it or not has already been highly successful with promise of much more. This "mission" has been to provide and is to provide better protection than perhaps anywhere else in the world. Long-term stealth communication, undetected movement, concealment, and the deceptive tactic for the enemy to remain overall indiscernible from the surrounding environment while spearheading multiple targets in heavily populated areas of their foe, is exactly what the enemy knows or believes necessary to achieve ultimately victory - regardless of how long it takes.
The enemy knows that it is being helped immensely by this unconventional ally's continual propaganda that promotes an environment where it, the enemy, can establish a stronger foothold and gain further ground. Unsuspecting youth, students, and others who can be swayed by pressure to conform to political correctness over and above common sense, and also those who are not so easily swayed, are all nonetheless continually bombarded with both direct and hidden persuasion from nearly all media as well as that which is directed from positions of power and influence. The specious message is clear. It is immoral and unjust to attempt in any way, other than with respect to white heterosexual male Americans, discern differences in people and their behaviors as to what may otherwise be seen as unusual or out of place. Moreover, that it is wrong for the unsuspecting to place on equal footing, or worse, revere higher value on, their own American culture and heritage over that of any other. Essentially, the underlying message is that we should now welcome that which is new and different and cast away old American custom, culture and mores to make way for embracing a new paradigm.
The enemy knows that this unknowing ally is vigilant. This unknowing ally will continually maintain, reinforce, and promote the self-destructive nature of political correctness in America. The self-destructiveness of political correctness can certainly be "a means to an end," regardless of whether or not it is recognized as such by all those who engage in it. The advancement of political correctitude, which dissipates barriers of many thoughts and actions, has little or no regard to some of those thoughts and actions that are synergistically critical for self-preservation in the long-term. [Although "self-preservation" is normally a term reserved for describing the preservations of one’s own life, it can also include one’s ideals, because in some cases they may ultimately be inseparable. What I am trying to relate here can be better understood when one revisits how leaders in socialist, fascist, communist and totalitarian governments had initially gained power. Without exception, historically, in each and every case the leaders of these forms of government first gained and then held ongoing power by continued murder and treachery as a "means" to stop anyone whose thoughts or actions posed a threat to their despotic intent.]
This incessant demand for political correctness has been clearing the way for what is becoming undeterred propagation of this "new paradigm" to increasing numbers of receptive, unsuspecting, so-called open-minded, independent-thinking* Americans. Many of these receptive and unsuspecting Americans are being led unknowingly down a long path to a destination where, if these Americans knew of it ahead of time, they would absolutely not want to arrive. All too many Americans are being led fallaciously to believe that, among other things, the non-assimilation of immigrants, promotion of multiculturalism, advocation of ever-expanding diversity in language and culture, and the validation of sanctuary cities are each and all necessary for the pretended and imaginary need for Americans to finally absolve themselves of their nation's previous transgressions and guilt that resulted. In turn, this should supposedly make America "likeable" once again in the "world community." [Of course, if all of this were actually accomplished, what is now known as the USA would cease to exist. What its giving people do for the world would have stopped and remained as something seen only in the history books. (* "independent-thinking" - Those who are commonly thought to have this are independents, centrists, moderates, and others who must first wait to see which way the wind is blowing and what the polls say before offering an opinion.)]
Of course, the enemy will love this! And, no doubt, will love it regardless of whether or not the "end" is actually ever achieved by it's "useful idiot" ally. Just the advancement of this "hogwash" [the wash in which Islamic fundamentalists must think that Christian "pigs" bathe themselves] makes it much easier for it, the enemy, to be more secure in its footing and increase the number of "safe havens" or pockets across the US in which it can thrive and multiply among others of the same ethnicity and culture.
We "know the enemy" enjoys an unholy alliance
This tacit and unholy alliance between our enemy and its unsuspecting ally right here in the USA was a match made in ...., well I don't think it was Heaven, anyway. No place other than in the USA could such protection and cover be provided a self-declared enemy of the state better than by the combined forces of some of this country's Rino Republicans, many of its Democrats, as well as many or all liberals in the media, education, clergy, business who have turned a "blind eye" to common sense and probability to favor political correctness - even to the point of being suicidal. Our enemy has already long ago realized that this assortment of liberals will cry out: "Racism!" "Hate-speech!" " "War-mongering!" - whenever its actions are under suspect. American liberals, despite the high degree of mathematical probability based upon well-documented previous events, whenever possible will not allow, or will at least try to prevent either race and ethnicity from being on a list of indicia used in profiling those who would be suspected of terrorist threat.
Does the enemy even exist?
Lastly, we "know the enemy," at least until its time is "right," prays, no doubt, that it can remain undetected or invisible, or even better yet, not even "exist" as an "enemy" in the minds of the American population. In other words, it prays that it is thought to be nothing more than something of the distant past to be long forgotten. So far, it appears that these prayers are being answered when hearing the words and watching the actions of their unsuspecting ally, that is to say, most liberals throughout America. This is exemplified to some degree by the terms they, as well as the others who they have influenced, have used equally, or in some cases, considerably more often than others to describe exactly what happened on September 11th, 2001; or, for that matter, in their hindsight seen through the same liberal prism back to December 7th, 1941. In either case, some of the descriptive words they now use to describe either of those days are more akin to acts of God such as natural disasters. This is to say that what normally would have been reserved for the description of such things as volcanic eruptions, landslides, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, and lightning strikes, they are now interchanging with words that would have accurately described an act or acts of an enemy on those days, such as: attack; attacks; act or acts of war; and or even mass murder [although in the context of war, those who are killed are termed "casualties" and those doing the killing, even though such is premeditated, are not considered murderers]. Here I think would be a good across-the-board sampling of what I'm trying to convey:
"9/11 tragedy" [Google search: 5,800,000 hits]; "wtc tragedy" [Google search: 1,520,000 hits]; "wtc disaster" [Google search: 253,000 hits]; now compare the combined average website page hits with the lower number for "wtc attack" [Google search: 376,000 hits].
This same pattern seems to hold true even when comparing descriptions of the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese on December 7th, 1941: "pearl harbor tragedy" [Google search: 1,300,000 hits]; "pearl harbor disaster" [Google search: 1,830,000 hits]; and, now compare the combined average hits for these websites pages with the lower number for "pearl harbor attack" [Google search: 756,000 hits].
Just in case we find ourselves starting to have our vision blurred by inadvertently seeing things through a liberal prism, here below is a visual reminder to help us distinguish the difference between an "act of God" and the "act of an enemy":
The aforementioned prayers of our enemy, however, although not answered by God, seem well on there way to being answered by one of His former angels, the fallen angel Lucifer. Bear in mind that the greatest accomplishment of Lucifer, or the devil as we call him, was to convince much of mankind that he did not exist.
Ditched clothes and phony signs?
To refresh your memory, here are some of the pictures from those previous emails that Robert had asserted were phony and used essentially as propaganda 1) to urge Americans to insist that their state and federal governments enforce the laws that protect the border; and, 2) to remind Americans to remain vigilant and wary of political Islam. The first two appearing below were alleged to have been taken near the Mexican border of clothes discarded in ditches by foreign nationals who crossed the border illegally.
The 3 pictures appearing below are more photographs that Robert found unbelievable. He thought that they had been "doctored" despite the fact that in 2006 they were published in what are generally considered to be credible websites such as CNN.com, Canada.com as well as some others. Along with the pictures these websites covered a story about a man in England that had supposedly violated parole who was being sent back to prison.
According to the news stories, this guy was wearing a simulated suicide bombing outfit outside the Danish Embassy during London protests against cartoons of the so-called "Prophet Mohammed." 
"Conservative opposition spokesman David Davis said slogans such as 'Massacre those who insult Islam' and 'Europe you will pay, your 9/11 will come' amounted to incitement to murder and that police should take a 'no tolerance' approach to them." CNN
Assuming that Robert accepts the purported fact that the London protests indeed did occur and that they had been organized in some fashion, it seems though that he cannot imagine that the London protests were organized by a person or persons who wanted the vocal and printed message spread throughout the world and moreover wanted to be sure that the words of it could be read clearly without misspellings. This blurring of the message, of course, may have certainly occurred if some of protesters were new to London as well as new to the English language and attempted to make signs on their own; hence, why at least in my estimation that there would be a reasonable possibility that the sign making was commissioned upon at least one scribe who knew English sufficiently.
Hypnosis, brainwashing, and indoctrination
Robert reminds me of back when I used to hypnotize people and before they'd return to full consciousness, I'd commence with a little experiment. I would give them a post-hypnotic suggestion of something that would reasonably defy all common sense and logic for someone in the normal conscious state. I don't now remember exactly what these post-hypnotic suggestion were, but they'd be something like a door knob was terribly hot or the number "seven" - the digit "7" did not exist. When they would awake from hypnosis, and they [alone] "heard the door bell ring" [another post-hypnotic suggestion] and then proceed to answer the door, they very much acted like they burnt their hand when they grabbed the door knob. Even after I would tell them immediately that no one had put a lit lighter underneath the knob, they refused to believe it and their hand still hurt. I would try to convince them in different ways the hot knob was nothing more than their imagination and including that it was nothing more than a suggestion they were given under hypnosis, but even that wouldn't work. Sometimes they would get visibly angry with me for not believing them and kept quite insistent. In some cases it took quite a while for them to overcome this manifestation of their belief system and able to once again touch the knob without it feeling hot. Much the same happened with the post-hypnotic suggestion of there being no such thing as the number seven. If I asked them to count from 1 to 10, they left out the number 7. If I would ask them what year the Declaration of Independence was signed, I might get a blank stare [and yes, they knew their American history well enough to have normally been able to answer the question]. It would usually take quite a bit of coaxing on my part for them to once again to accept the existence of the number 7. I should also add that in some cases, I was able to hypnotize someone without their specific knowledge of my intent or their express consent. All it really took in those cases was general trust of certain persons and the environment in which it would take place and willingness on their parts to be open-minded.
As you should know, I never had any formal training in hypnosis nor any training in how to either brainwash or indoctrinate effectively. The only thing close to that was my various classroom and in-the-field salesmanship training over the years prior to me ever knowingly hypnotizing anyone. That being said, it's my guess that all three, namely, hypnosis, brainwashing and indoctrination, have a number of common elements. I do know that repetition of hearing the same thing as a lot to do with hypnosis. It also very much involves the belief system. When you add these things to general trust and willingness to be open-mindedness on the part of the subject, it is my thinking that you would be well on your way to compiling factors necessary in an effective formula to brainwash or at least sufficiently indoctrinate a given subject. Yes, you guessed it, it's my bet that Robert has unknowingly been such a subject. It would certainly explain a lot of things.
Do sign-makers make signs for others including protesters?
For whatever it's worth, maybe Robert is unaware that many protesters nowadays don't always make their own signs. For example, here's a video of banners being mass produced by a group of individuals for an upcoming protest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_Q4edSPDM
Here's another URL of a website that sells protest signs, flyers, buttons, etc, for the recent Republican National Convention here in St. Paul: http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/home/march-on-the-rnc.html
And here's yet another URL of a photo gallery of the MN Welfare Rights Coalition home website. Jim's and Nancy's deceased friend Sharon had a daughter Angel who is now and has been a spokesperson for this organization. She and this organization had planned protests at the Republican convention urging Republicans, among other things, to tax the so-called rich more so to pay even more for illegal aliens to, among other things, stay at home in the sanctuary city of St. Paul and make and raise out-of-wedlock babies. I am unaware at this point however if in fact their protests came to fruition. When you see all the different photos you'll see virtually identical font used on numerous signs they've displayed at various protests they've staged over the years: http://www.welfarerightsmn.org/gallery.html
With respect to Robert remarking about what he probably considers as unbelievable absurdity of supporters of "other such nonsense" and using in hindsight what appears to be his current reasoning, one could thereby conclude that he might very well also think that Democrat president FDR made "sweeping generalizations" that lumped all the Japanese on the island of Japan with the small group of Kamikazes who attacked Pearl Harbor. Moreover, FDR somehow mistook this "negative aspect" of this small group of Japanese pilots as a threat to "the positive (and often romanticized) aspects of American culture" when in his radio broadcast to the American people he brought the news of this "negative aspect" [which many at the time called an "attack" or "act of war"] of the Japanese culture in the form of "propaganda" leaning "towards war-mongering" and bordering "on hate speech."
Ahh darn, it's just too bad the present-day liberalism that indoctrinates students at the U of M [the university from which my dad graduated, then I attended, and cousin Tom G, for that matter, and now Robert works] and elsewhere was unavailable to FDR during his college years. If it were, he might have then realized that the emperor-based ideology of Japan at the time, which held, among other beliefs, that the emperor descended from gods, was simply misunderstood by what he then would have thought were predominantly racist Americans in their Western culture. Had FDR somehow first received what most likely a great percentage of our current academia would consider to be a "proper" liberal indoctrination that's [all too] prevalent today throughout our educational systems [and again in my opinion, if not prevalent, is nonetheless all too popular in various establishments of religion across the USA], instead of him being an advocate of Congress' declaration of war with Japan, he may have rather advised Americans it was their "God-damn" [quoting B. Hussein Obama’s minister and friend of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. referring to America during a 2003 sermon (video source)] fault and explained to America that it was just "the chickens coming home to roost" [again quoting Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. statement in a sermon shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11 (source video)] and that it would be best if we were to just "turn the other cheek." With this mindset, it wouldn't have been surprising if FDR would have gone on to have said the same essential thing that Robert had said to you just recently in his last email, that he [FDR] would have no part of it and be "staunchly opposed to, what seems to be a consistent denigration of certain people groups."
Did Moses (or whomever wrote Genesis)
get "confused" about the story of the Tower of Babel?
Just think of how much better things could have turned out if rather than drawing that proverbial "line in the sand," that is to say declaring war against our enemies who killed well over 2,000 of us at Pearl Harbor on that December 7th [over 600 less were killed that day compared to September 11th], we instead had welcomed the surviving Japanese Kamikaze pilots and ground troop "immigrants" along with all others from the far corners of the world and including Germany and been "surrounded by people from every nation, tribe and tongue." Who knows, maybe by now "God damn America" [again quoting Obama's pastor Wright id.] could be closely approaching becoming a true "Heaven" on Earth. [That is of course if it mirrored the "Heaven" above as Robert envisions it, where he believes people, or at least their souls, are still diverse and divided by "nation, tribe, and tongue." Joann, if I remember correctly, it was at the Tower of Babel where the LORD confused the language of all the earth; and from there the LORD scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth."
(Genesis 11:1-9) I don't remember of hearing or reading anywhere in the Bible where God confused language in "Heaven."]
Allow me to digress for a moment [even though it's way past the time I should have asked]. Ever since that Thanksgiving we had at Amanda's and Robert's a few years ago when I posed a question for which neither of them could give any real answer, I have still wondered why Robert thinks nonetheless that it's possible to keep people of diverse cultures who speak different languages united as a group in relative close proximity despite the fact that God Himself knew by doing nothing more than confusing the language that people would scatter all over the face of the earth.
Of course I realize that Christianity is a great unifier. Christ was born long after God confused the language. For a while I it was my hunch that maybe Robert thought that virtually all differences in language, custom, culture would fall by the wayside and eventually disappear as long as everyone held the same belief and faith in Christ - although perhaps not totally gone until the day Christ returns here on earth. However, it is now apparent that I was off on my hunch. It seems rather that he. Robert, would wish for diverse people of different ethnicity and culture to actively maintain their differences of language and culture of their respective country of origin, or of their parents' country of origin, here in the United States, and of course, too, here in St. Paul as the case may be.
Well, good luck to him and all those who may think it isn't a good thing to try to assimilate into customs, practices and culture of this county and society to which they moved and now reside, namely, the United States. And while I'm at wishing "good luck," I would like that luck extended to all those of us who try to overcome these language and cultural barriers, or "walls of division" these diverse people are advised to build or maintain by people such as Robert [the very form of walls he complains have been made and maintained by longtime Americans or those who have assimilated], when we're trying to simply order some food, direct traffic, advise of law, enforce law, save people from burning buildings, provide immediate care in hospital emergency rooms, save potential drowning victims, use a restroom facility that had been used sanitarily before us, sleep in a hotel/motel bed absent cockroaches, save those with heart attacks, eat with some confidence that our food was prepared and served in a hygienic manner, hire for employment, avoid exposure of ourselves and our children [and grandchildren] who are subjected to close quarters [such as those in school or hospitals where there's a much higher probability to being exposed to various strains of communicable diseases such as forms of tuberculosis,polio, etc. that have been nearly eradicated by our public health system and screening of lawful immigrants], lend spiritual guidance, or in basic terms, simply instruct, educate, request, help, etc.
Everyone believing in one God and that His only begotten Son died for our sins, rose from the dead and that it is ONLY through Him, Jesus Christ, that we can enter the Kingdom of Heaven, is the strongest of all bonds that can keep us together, spiritually and eternally. However, here on Earth in a practical sense, even though we hold the same beliefs, not being able to communicate with each other and customarily doing things very differently from each other is no attraction, instead it works in opposition. To some extent, it repels us from one another. For example Joann, are you attracted to going to the same McDonald's if those who attempt to take your order seem to understand nothing of what you say and likewise you understand nothing of what they say, either [in that it all sounds like so much "babel"] - but, nevertheless you hope that they'll get your order correct, but despite several attempts you find that it is still wrong when you open one of the wrappers in the car? My question was rhetorical - Joann, I know you're not.
Like attracts like - it's the law of attraction and one might say it's a law of the universe. The more things, and including humans, are similar, the more they are attracted to one another. Birds of a feather flock together as they say.
Do Compass Church Christians love Nazis as much as Muslims?
It's troublesome for me where Robert says "... our goal as a church [The Compass] is to love Muslims as much as we love Christians." Now if he said that the goal of his church is to love "Arabs" or "all people" or "all humans" I wouldn't have thought anything to be unusual. Perhaps it was just a misstatement. Having non-exclusionary "charity" [1 Corinthians, Chapter 13], or "love," as it has become to be known, for all people as it is described in the Bible is consistent with your and my Christian understanding and faith. But, my point though is that he didn't say "Arabs," he did in fact say specifically "Muslims." Robert said that Muslims "deserve to be seen as humans." With no exception, of course we agree with that. They are human life. [For that matter, so are unborn babies. Oh sure, we have many descriptions for them just as other human life such as Blacks, Caucasians, Mongoloids, Asians, Arabs, American Indians, youngsters, kids, geriatrics, oldsters, dwarfs, midgets, Homo sapiens, "least of my brothers" (quoting Barack Obama [source]), etc., but in any case, they're still absolutely human (in that they are not kangaroos or anything else) "possessing infinite worth for which God was willing to sacrifice his only Son!"] But let's reverse that thought; do all humans "deserve" to be seen as Muslims? Well, of course not! They are not one in the same. To be human only requires human existence. To be Muslim requires human action. God loves all his children. He does not love all their actions [sin is a human action, for example]. For a human to submit himself or herself to be Muslim is to mean that they have acquired a belief in a political ideology that is indistinguishable from spiritual and religious faith commenced and organized by a false prophet [in terms of our belief]. It's one thing be Divinely guided Biblically by "love" or "charity" to attract all people ["humans"] having different political ideology and/or religious faith, but it is quite another to even attempt to try to attract an artificial political ideology with love or charity.
To me, what in fact he did state would have been virtually no different than had he instead stated, "... our goal as a church is to love Nazis as much as we love Christians." Had he said that, it would have been a little strained, but I still would have considered giving him the benefit of the doubt of a misstatement by hoping he had really meant to say "love Germanic people" even though it would have been even a greater stretch in that he would have been required to have included the noun "people" in that "Germanic" doesn't become plural by adding "s" at the end of it. "Germanics" is a language family, not a family of people of any sort.
On the other hand, if he meant to specifically say "Muslims" then I must take it to mean that he is saying it is his Christian church's goal to love a belief [it's a particular belief and therefrom a submission that makes the person who submitted a "Muslim"] that rejects Christ as our savior and advocates the political and religious doctrine of Islam. [This might be seen to be a Freudian slip telling of a compulsion to ultimately achieve "diversity" as if it were a loftier goal than universal unity under Christ even somewhat at the expense of Christianity - in essence prostituting Christian faith so to maintain and perpetuate a constant diversity as if it were that and not "all one in Jesus Christ" (Galatians 3:28) we strove to achieve here on earth. If in fact Robert has muddled priorities and subconsciously placing diversity as the ultimate in achievement, then I would attribute it being at least partially due to him being in his everyday life surrounded by those (not including Amanda) who repetitively, and perhaps subliminally, pound it into his head whether they realize it or not. (Not that I think he would ever do it, but it would be interesting if he made a conscious effort during a given week to see how often the concept of diversity or the word itself or derivative was used by himself, around him, or in whatever reading materials he may have read. Then again, it might be next to impossible for him to do in that he being the subject would be too difficult to accurately be objective. It would be perhaps much like asking someone that I had hypnotized to remember during the course of a day or week how many times they were exposed to the number "7" that they didn't believe existed as per the post hypnotic suggestion they were given while in a relaxed state.)]
It is one thing to attract all those of different sexes, "socio-economic strata," "experiences," orientations, "ages," races, nationalities, "cultures," ethnicities, religions and those having no faith in something greater than just themselves. It is entirely another thing to attempt to maintain and keep ongoing any or all of those forementioned variances by the efforts of one or even many churches. Some things God leaves up to the individual. Nowhere in Rev. 7:9-12; Acts 6:1-7; 11:19-26; 13:1-3; Matt. 28:19-20; Eph. 2:14-22; Gal. 3:26-28, the cited Biblical verses by the pastor of The Compass Covenant Church, which the pastor offered as the basis for his church to maintain "multiculturalism," and affirming that "diversity" be an ongoing part of the church’s identity and vision in one unified church, do any of them [verses] say such. At least one of the pertinent Divine directive in those verses is for unity under Jesus Christ regardless from where one comes, not diversity.
As Christians I think we all can agree that we should love all people of all faiths. Loving all faiths is quite another thing. As Christians I don't think virtually any of us could agree that we should love all faiths of all people, much less the faith of Islam or the indistinguishable political Islam. To reiterate, I hope Robert's reference to loving Muslims was a misstatement. Otherwise, at best, it's a confusing message for those who are members of his church, for those who are considering becoming members, and of course for those who are considering becoming Christians whether they want to become members of his church or not.
Christians in Cairo
If Robert would ever think of bringing a branch of his Compass Christian Church to Cairo, Egypt, it'd probably be best that he did not bring his family with him or they may all three have as much as 3-5 years in prison to reconsider whether or not the "walls of division" are higher in America than those constructed by Muslims for Christians in Cairo. If you watch this video you will see why I say this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS32_yHJXBI
Pistol in your belt
It's too bad that Robert never seemed to respond with substance and fact instead of just rhetoric or nods and smiles. It kind of reminds me of something I told Robert about a while back. A night a long time ago in Milwaukee when one of the guys we were throwing out of a bar I worked at went for a gun in his holster belt, but his hand came up empty. His gun had already fallen out when he hit the door he flew through before landing outside on the sidewalk. He had a pretty sheepish look on his face as he quickly double-checked feeling all around to still find that his belt held no gun. He and his friend [who in fact did draw a gun but had it taken away before firing a shot] were both lucky they survived that night. One might consider from this, at least for the guy on the sidewalk, that it ain't good to have a chip on your shoulder if there ain't a pistol in your belt. In other words one might get all caught-up in believin' their own rhetoric so much that they might forget they never really had anything worth anything to back it up. "All hat and no cattle" as they say. - Michael
**********************************
----- Excerpt from email from Mike to Robert sent on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:30 PM. -----
In any case, he may have discovered or will learn here that Islam is about dualism and is antithetical [contrasted in character or purpose, diametrically opposite]. The Koran [which is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later)], Sira [life of Mohammed] and Hadith [traditions of Mohammed] are the foundational texts of Islam. "Koran, Sira and Hadith must be taken as a whole. We call them the Islamic Trilogy to emphasize the unity of the texts." - Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam [CSPI].
"Dualism is the foundation and key to understanding Islam. Everything about Islam comes in twos ..." - Bill Warner.
As stated previously, the Koran, is actually two books, the Koran of Mecca and the Koran of Medina. These two [2] books have many contradictions but both are considered by Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, so whether verses in the later book contradict verses in the earlier book or vice versa, both are taken as sacred and true. So even if verses from one completely contradict verses from the other, only one of them cannot be taken as true, rather both nonetheless must be taken as true because Muslims believe that their Allah is never wrong.
[There, that's simple enough, you got it? *smile* ]
"For example:
[Koran of Mecca] 73:10: Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and leave them with dignity. From tolerance we move to the ultimate intolerance, not even the Lord of the Universe can stand the unbelievers:
[Koran of Medina] 8:12: Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the unbelievers’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!"
All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradiction—if two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true." - Bill Warner.
Mr. Warner goes on to point out that "all of our [Western] politics and ethics are based upon a unitary ethic that is best formulated in the Golden Rule: Treat others as you would be treated.
On the basis of the Golden Rule—the equality of human beings—we have created democracy, ended slavery and treat women and men as political equals. So the Golden Rule is a unitary ethic. All people are to be treated the same. All religions have some version of the Golden Rule except Islam."
Warner: "The term 'human being' has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer and unbeliever. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam. There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule."
Warner: "To reiterate, all of science is based upon the law of contradiction. If two things contradict each other, then at least one of them has to be false. But inside of Islamic logic, two contradictory statements can both be true. Islam uses dualistic logic and we use unitary scientific logic."
Dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill, harm or deceive the unbeliever.There have been other dualistic cultures. The KKK comes to mind. But the KKK is a simplistic dualism. The KKK member hates all black people at all times; there is only one choice. This is very straightforward and easy to see. [I sure hope liberal Democrat Senator Robert (Sheets) Byrd, former Grand Wizard of the KKK has changed his thinking!] The dualism of Islam is more deceitful and offers two choices on how to treat the unbeliever. The unbeliever can be treated nicely, in the same way a farmer treats his cattle well. So Islam can be "nice", but in no case is the unbeliever a "brother" or a friend. In fact, there are some 14 verses of the Koran that are emphatic—a Muslim is never a friend to the unbeliever. A Muslim may be "friendly," but he is never an actual friend. And the degree to which a Muslim is actually a true friend is the degree to which he is not a Muslim, but a hypocrite."
This sums up what Mr. Warner says about how Western civilization has dealt with Islamic doctrine and history:
"Look at how Christians, Jews, blacks, intellectuals and artists have dealt with Islamic doctrine and history. In every case their primary ideas fail.
Christians believe that 'love conquers all.' Well, love does not conquer Islam. Christians have a difficult time seeing Islam as a political doctrine, not a religion. The sectarian nature of Christian thought means that the average non-Orthodox Christian has no knowledge or sympathy about the Orthodox Christian’s suffering.
Jews have a theology that posits a unique relationship between Jews and the creator-god of the universe. But Islam sees the Jews as apes who corrupted the Old Testament. Jews see no connection between Islam’s political doctrine and Israel.
Black intellectuals have based their ideas on the slave/victim status and how wrong it was for white Christians to make them slaves. Islam has never acknowledged any of the pain and suffering it has caused in Africa with its 1400-year-old slave trade. But blacks make no attempt to get an apology from Muslims and are silent in the presence of Islam. Why? Is it because Arabs are their masters?
Multiculturalism is bankrupt against Islam’s demand for every civilization to submit. The culture of tolerance collapses in the face of the sacred intolerance of dualistic ethics. Intellectuals respond by ignoring the failure.
Our intellectuals and artists have been abused for 1400 years. Indeed, the psychology of our intellectuals is exactly like the psychology of the abused wife, the sexually abused child or rape victim. Look at the parallels between the response of abuse victims and our intellectuals. See how violence has caused denial.
The victims deny that the abuse took place: Our media never reports the majority of jihad around the world. Our intellectuals don’t talk about how all of the violence is connected to a political doctrine.
The abuser uses fear to control the victim: What was the reason that newspapers would not publish the Mohammed cartoon? Salman Rushdie still has a death sentence for his novel. What "cutting edge" artist creates any artistic statement about Islam? Fear rules our intellectuals and artists.
The victims find ways to blame themselves: We are to blame for the attacks on September 11, 2001. If we try harder Muslims will act nicer. We have to accommodate their needs.
The victim is humiliated: White people will not talk about how their ancestors were enslaved by Islam. No one wants to claim the victims of jihad. Why won’t we claim the suffering of our ancestors? Why don’t we cry about the loss of cultures and peoples? We are too ashamed to care.
The victim feels helpless: 'What are we going to do?' 'We can’t kill 1.3 billion people.' No one has any understanding or optimism. No one has an idea of what to try. The only plan is to 'be nicer.'
The victim turns the anger inward: What is the most divisive issue in today’s politics? Iraq. And what is Iraq really about? Political Islam. The Web has a video about how the CIA and Bush planned and executed September 11. Cultural self-loathing is the watchword of our intellectuals and artists.
We hate ourselves because we are mentally molested and abused. Our intellectuals and artists have responded to the abuse of jihad just as a sexually abused child or a rape victim would respond. We are quite intellectually ill and are failing at our job of clear thinking. We can’t look at our denial."
Mr. Warner think it's crucial for us to learn the doctrine of political Islam. He summarizes that here:
"Political Islam has annihilated every culture it has invaded or immigrated to. The total time for annihilation takes centuries, but once Islam is ascendant it never fails. The host culture disappears and becomes extinct. We must learn the doctrine of political Islam to survive. The doctrine is very clear that all forms of force and persuasion may and must be used to conquer us. Islam is a self-declared enemy of all unbelievers. The brilliant Chinese philosopher of war, Sun Tsu, had the dictum—know the enemy. We must know the doctrine of our enemy or be annihilated. Or put another way: if we do not learn the doctrine of political Islam, our civilization will be annihilated just as Egypt’s Coptic civilization was annihilated."
Bearing all this in mind it may make it easier for Robert to somehow believe that there could actually be a shred of truth to the story that:
"Some radical Mullahs have told their European congregations that Islamic Shari'a law justifies shoplifting and other forms of stealing from European merchants and companies as a way to make non-Muslims pay the discriminatory jizya tax that is extracted from non-Muslim citizens in Muslim countries." from "Goodbye Europe, Hello Eurabia" http://www.aina.org/news/20060328120230.htm There's an article in the Israel Forum entitled: Egypt's Cairo: Coptic Christians Living in Filth. [Here is a Google search in that this particular link is now dead 8/30/08.] "No greater example of Islamic subjugation of non-Muslims can be shown. Coptic Christians living in Cairo are forced to live in unspeakable filth, with rats nibbling on the ears of their children." Seeing what conditions Muslims apparently think is fine for unbelievers to live in within their midst may explain why they see no problem with how the Spaniards are now living supposedly due to their migration there - as the Rodrigez email was complaining about.
-------------------- End of Excerpt -----------------
