DAVID CONN TruthSleuth

We live in the age of information.  But, for unsubstantial reasons, we are more restricted than ever from putting forth both the information and the facts that would awaken the sleeping giant that is our American populous.

The people at large, for example, have little or no idea that a totalitarian mentality within our university hierarchies has beheaded a body that was designed for intellectual and ideological exchange, a body that should have continued at the forefront of all academic endeavors.  Yet we have come to a point where the mainstream media ignore--almost entirely--the countless cases wherein our university authorities censure students who have expressed ideas and concepts that have made other students "feel uncomfortable."  (And I'm not talking about racial slurs or other obscenities.)  Any serious study will show an extraordinary alliance of professors and teaching assistants and high level college administrators who either support or engage in a vicious kind of thought reform on their students and on the few faculty members who do not embrace a severely leftist ideology.  It is redolent of the Chinese communists who in the late 1940s brainwashed the professors at leading Chinese universities--and did so on a massive scale.

With that in mind, consider how, with a modest number of exceptions, America's academicians (grade school teachers included), with passionate support by the National Education Association (the teacher's union), will simply not tolerate any criticism of Islamists.  Recall how they attacked Franklin Graham for stating that "Islam is an evil religion."  And Graham is an astute and learned man; but what is more important in this instance is that he is a courageous man.  He said what had to be said, even though he knew that he would be set upon by the infected intellectuals mentioned moments ago. 

It is near to tragic that in our "information age" we are restricted, on the campus and most everywhere else, from putting forth the facts about the structured evil that is Islam.  (Later I will pose a remarkable parallel to the evil Jim Jones cult.)  It is my thesis that the most effective way to fight terrorism would be to expose Islam for what it is: a primitive and bizarre mega-cult that made its way through history by means of an unseemly kind of chauvinism, by means of a legal system that is fraught with a frightening lack of logic and fairness, by means of a system overseen by tribal chiefs and "religious" leaders (imams) whose corrupt power and warped sense of compassion and tolerance served themselves alone, and by means of a terrorism that left the world--the French, especially--in a state of intellectual devastation.  (The French, to this day, are terrified of Islamic cultures, but haven't a clue as to how they might handle the matter--other than simply not upset them.  It should surprise nobody that the French refused to send troops to the present war against the terrorists in Iraq.)

It would not be easy, of course, to expose Islam.  The key difficulty has to do with awakening the retarded intellectuals who control not only our media and our educators, but the solid linkage between the two as well!

I cited earlier the "unseemly kind of chauvinism" throughout Islamic history and a "legal system that is fraught with a frightening lack of logic and fairness."  Let me illustrate by posing questions to any true intellectual within western civilization.  How do you justify a Koran that doesn't allow women a joy in heaven equal to that of men?  What do you say about the fact that when a raped woman goes to court she will need two witnesses before she could even begin to have a case, whereas a man needs only one for his defense?  What kind of evil allows a man to kill his wife with impunity when informed by only one witness that she was unfaithful?  What kind of religion tolerates, and in many cases encourages, the butchering of women's genitals, thus not allowing them to enjoy sex the way a man can?  I could go on and on.  It wouldn't be "politically correct," though, would it?  For, in America's new world of "toleration for everything," it is anathema for me to launch even the first question.  Yet, in our crazy new view of educating our sixth graders, we have them read the Koran and we dress them in the clothing of good little Muslims.  (It's too outrageous, of course, to have them read the Bible!)

Anticipating a puzzlement within the reader, I will venture a basis for this craziness.  It is almost childishly simple to explain.  You see, our diseased intellectuals (I call them "academia nuts") are dangerously obsessed with multiculturalism.  They actually believe that no culture is any better than any other culture.  Put another way, they are convinced that we have neither the means nor the right to judge the actions or values of any other person or group as being necessarily wrong or necessarily right.  What is it that provides a basis for such entrenched and mindless views of life?  Another simple answer:  These fools consider themselves to be genuine scientists.  Thus they believe--since science is concerned with exploring, discovering, studying and testing all that goes on in the natural world, and since science judges neither the moral right nor the moral wrong of any event within our natural world--that they, too, should never make a moral assessment.  These "academia nuts" forget, ignore, or in some cases are plainly unable to notice the obvious fact, that each of them is more than just a scientist.  In short, they fail to see the totality of their selves.  They fail to see that morality has to do with levels of reality and spiritual perception that, by definition, are beyond the world of natural science, yet might nevertheless be just as real as the natural world.
   

Curiously, it can be reasonably surmised that science itself provides a possible basis for there being a realm beyond the natural world.  For science, being limited by the paradigm of a natural world, admits that it cannot make any pronouncements about a moral or spiritual realm beyond its own scientifically established paradigm.  Indeed, could scientists (bound by this paradigm to a natural or mechanistic view of things) presume to make pronouncements about a realm that, if it exists at all, exists quite beyond the paradigm that science itself has established?  Some scientists, of course, have made the mistake of addressing matters within a spiritual context, saying "there is no scientific evidence." The embarrassing aspect of such announcements evades them completely.  They do not consider the implications.  For such pronouncements reveal an error in either of two areas.  Take your choice.  On the one hand the statement implies that the scientist went into that area and did some real searching.  But this approach would beg some important questions.  For example, what method did you use to make your search?  Did you use the tools of science in order to reach your conclusion?  If you did, is it quite alright for other scientists to use scientific tools in their search for intelligent design as an operative in the study of evolution.  If you do think it is OK, have you considered the confusion you would be injecting into science and its methodology?  But of course you would in honesty have to admit that you actually made no such a careful and disciplined look into the spiritual realm would you not?  And does that not beg another question?  Why are you making a scientific conclusion about a matter which you did not study scientifically?  If your reply is that you made your conclusion by way of a philosophical contemplation and not by scientific procedures, then are you, by your own action, admitting to the possibility that there may exist areas other than science in which we may contemplate broader realities?  On the other hand, if you did in fact make a serious attempt to find God's kingdom, did you put aside the tools of science, so that you could give yourself over to prayer, meditation, and studies of the historical faith?  That is to say, did you truly put aside your cynicism?  Did you truly open yourself to God?  Was it, in other words, a wholehearted step of faith?  If so, how do you explain all this to your peers and your close scientist friends?  Finally, do you understand the one concept that allows you to remain a well disciplined scientist yet allows you at the same time to consider all the critically important matters of meaning, morals, values and purpose?

Now I should go back and consider those "retarded" and "corrupt" intellectuals.  Prior to thirty years ago, and to my everlasting shame, I had been hobnobbing with these intellectuals, including the ones that dominated the infected, new age churches.  I was one of them.  It is precisely why I know their minds.  And that is why I am able to draw them out.  And that is how I profoundly understand the words of Theodore Roosevelt, one of our greatest presidents, who said, "Men trained in intellect, but not in religion and morals, will become a menace to the country."

I parted ways with them in the early 1970s.  It was a consequence of the intense frustration I experienced upon trying to awaken them to the dangers of the Jim Jones cult.  They were too clearly enamored of Jones to give me the time of day.  It was then that I turned my attention to the question of what was the matter with these supposedly intelligent leaders and what was the matter with me.  It was enlightening in regard to their mentalities and it was humiliating in respect to my own history of liberalism.  After a few years of studying them--and studying myself--I realized that I, like them, had no trustworthy frame of reference.  I quickly remedied my situation.  Things began to make sense.  But they remain as, or more, intellectually impaired than ever.  It's no mystery to me why they understand neither terrorism nor the complexity of its Islamic refuge.

At this point it is fitting to illustrate how this retarded or corrupt intellectualism is manifest at several levels of American society.  Studies, stories and histories of infected intellects are legion.  So I'll relate just some of my personal encounters with the "spiritual insanity" that best describes   the minds of these pathetically confused thinkers who, at various levels of society, claim to be our leaders.  First, consider a university professor whom I used as a source in preparation for a second book.  I interviewed him after reading a lengthy study on "Aids, Sex and Drug Abuse" sponsored by the National Science Foundation.  Part of the book dealt with strange and primitive cultures (though the book was careful not to use those particular adjectives) and was the focal point of my asking the professor a question that (by way of his answer) caused him considerable alarm.  For this professor of religious studies and comparative religion, after my drawing him out carefully, admitted to me on tape that he could not deem it to be necessarily wrong for a father to have sex with his seven year-old son (though he, himself, would never do such a thing).  It was obvious that he considered himself to be guided by science and the scientific discipline.  But let me offer a further insight into this professor's odd mental state, a point that is vital to understanding the liberal mentality, including the blatherings of modernists and post-modernists--and, of course, in light of the several cases I will be mentioning in the next few paragraphs.  It is this:  There is an unrecognized fear within persons who cannot admit that some actions and desires are plainly, positively and absolutely wrong.  It is fear of the peer.  It is a fear of losing their elitist persona.  They are above the rest of us.  And they want to remain so!

Second is a man whom I had talked with on several occasions, a Democrat who claimed to be rather conservative.  Yet, in the course of our conversation, it became clear that he was a fanatic on animal rights--believing that animals are more precious than humans--and had contributed money to the radical PETA organization.  He confirmed my earlier understanding that he was strongly overboard on environmentalism.  Though a severe racist and an admitted misogynist, he claimed to be a Christian, but remains fascinated by Islam and the Koran (no doubt because of its terrifyingly misogynistic precepts).  He strongly believes that Christ would have been in favor of shipping Blacks back to Africa.  He avowed that he was anti-abortion, but now admits that there are instances where he would not only support, but would urge, abortions of healthy fetuses.  So why do I mention this case?  (For it seems that he is so looney that no one would give him the time of day.)  I mention it because the man has held several well-paying positions in civil service over the years.  He's also illustrative of  how strangely diverse these corrupt intellects happen to be.  So we must ask: How does he survive?  The primary reason is obvious.  He's a clever liar!

Third is a truly amazing instance in which I conversed with a typical liberal intellectual.  It  was in a north Berkeley home wherein was gathered a group of mainly liberal democrats--teachers, lawyers and their friends.  The evening conversation understandably embraced political elements, but at last the dialogue drifted to more philosophical considerations.  And, in this one instance, I sensed that one of these folks seemed ready to board what I would call a train waiting to depart for regions of the ridiculous.  I hopped on and beckoned him to jump on with me.  He happily then joined me on a ride that, to his surprise, terminated in the hometown of his unforeseen absurdities.  At that point, after having got a good grasp of his multiculturalism and after getting a good grip on his ethical relativism, I asked him a clear and simple question.  "Are there any cases where it might be absolutely wrong for a person to take the action of satisfying his curiosity?"  He then announced  that he firmly rejected absolutism.  That is to say, we cannot pronounce any specific action to be absolutely and necessarily wrong.  I got the point and wondered how soon he'd be wanting to hop back on the train and get back to those original subjects, those less discomfiting exchanges.  For I was ready to launch the most bizarre of questions (the kind that ultimately must be asked of any ethical relativist).  The moment presented itself.  I asked him, "Is it necessarily and absolutely wrong for someone to saw off the limbs of a nine year-old child, one by one, merely to satisfy one's curiosity as to how long it would take the child to die?"   There was a pause for a few moments.  I waited quietly for him to gather his thoughts. Then he said rather awkwardly, "It's not absolutely wrong.  It might be wrong in some circumstances, but it is not necessarily wrong in all situations."  I looked surprised that he would be bold enough to stick with his non-absolutism. His rhetorical wheels continued to roll toward a base of what might be called semi-logic, at the very best.  In a futile attempt to bring some reason to bear, he said, "Well, there may be some medical benefit derived from the act."  I said, "No, no; you misunderstand.  This guy has no concern whatsoever about medical knowledge.  He simply bet another one of his fiendish cohorts that the kid would die within twenty minutes, and the other guy bet it would take longer.  That's the sum of it."  I then turned to his lawyer friend and said, "Help me here, he doesn't seem to understand my question."  The lawyer friend, with expressions of helplessness and wonderment, remained quiet as his friend squirmed and struggled for at least a semblance of logic and reason.  He was a man who had drowned in the pool of his own strange statements. 

Fourth is the case of a sixth-grade teacher whom my wife and I encountered at a little Sierra   restaurant back in the nineties.  Neither of us will ever forget it.  This lady began talking about a book that really intrigued her, Out on a Limb, by Shirley MacLaine.  I purposely did not tell her what I really thought as she began to summarize this strange--but certainly not new--philosophy.  The book attempted to lead people away from any real sense of accountability.  The only way one can truly discern right and wrong, according to this life-view, is by experiencing the event.  Then,  if one suffers a bad consequence, one has learned.  Or, one may even get a chance to learn lessons in another life.  The point was that we would learn by experience.  And if we don't learn a lesson in that next life, we will surely learn it in another life.  You get the idea.  It's simply the offshoot of senseless, age-old crackpottery.  What assures its craziness, you'll agree, is what happens when you apply this nonsense to real life.  For this teacher did not understand that she should already know what is wrong and what is right in most of the situations she will face.  So, then:  After she gave a little summary of this strange "new" mysticism, the conversation took a drastic turn--one for which she was not even slightly prepared!  I said,  "Now, as I understand you to say, no one can know for sure that some action we might anticipate doing--or some action we are presently engaging in--is necessarily wrong. With that in mind, let me ask you a question: Let us say that little Johnny, one of your fifth graders, comes to you one afternoon and confides to you that his uncle has been fooling around with him sexually.  What do you say to him?  In light of your philosophy, is it not fitting for you to tell him that we can't know if it's wrong for his uncle to do that?  Would you not have to tell little Johnny that he and his uncle can only come to understand the rightness or wrongness of the action by way of 'experiencing it'?  So then, in light of this modern mystical wisdom that you espouse, what do you say to little Johnny?"   The poor lady was at a loss for words.  Her jaw dropped.  She lost color and became quite nervous.  I waited.  After a moment, she said, "Well, ..uh, ..I, uh.., I suppose that I'd, uh.., have to tell him that it is none of my business."  In an instant, my wife leaned forward to say, "Well, if you won't assume any responsibility at this point, how about your principal?  And if your principal's philosophy is the same as yours, where does that leave little Johnny?"   The woman was unable to leap out of the corner she had painted herself into--another example of modernist, mystical madness that has increasingly grabbed the minds of a non-thinking, swelling segment of American mentalities. 

Lastly I will give a couple of examples of how corrupt and heretical the mainstream churches have become.  In an attempt to show an attorney acquaintance just how severely off target most of these mainstream church denominations have become, I asked him to randomly select one of  them from the phonebook.  It turned out to be a United Methodist church located ten or so miles from Sacramento.  The next morning we attended the adult Sunday school class of that church.  The teacher then spent an hour telling us about the "wonderful" and  "orgasm[ic]" event she had experienced in her week-long retreat with EST (a new age cult initiated by a con man named Werner Erhard).  I was vindicated beyond all doubts.  The lawyer couldn't believe Christianity was not mentioned once.  But I was so taken by the absurdities of this Methodist Sunday school teacher that I was compelled to attend the next Sunday.  In that class the same teacher spent her time explaining to us that "each of us is God."  I was forced at that point to draw her into her own absurdity.  I said, "Now, as I understand you to say, everybody is God.  Let me ask a question, then.  Is Satan also God?"  She paused.  And two church Elders sat there in full wonderment at the question.  The teacher then answered, "Yes."  She was clearly compelled, by her own established presentation (ridiculous as it was), to give the answer I forced upon her.  She looked sheepish in her blatant pronouncement.  I looked around and noticed that one of the Elders hung his head as he muttered, "Well, I can't buy that!"  I felt sorry for the ten people who sat there victimized by the looniest teacher I  had ever expected to see in one of our "modern" mainstream churches.

sever ... relationship with the program if it were ever done again. ... the creation of peer-group ... pressure on people in their formative years ... violated their integrity and everybody should have known ... that was being done.  But the enthusiasm for the new technique was so intense that it was done recklessly.  Two of the young women became almost hysterical in trying to retain what they had been trained by their parents to believe was a proper personal reserve.  And they did retain it.  They retained it by being alienated by the whole group.  ... an appalling price to pay.

... one of the experiments ... going on in the Disciples of Christ then, and the residue of which is still with us, was the substitution of a personal and communal life oriented around the reality of the divine human encounter, the substitution, for that, of a socio-economic philosophy.  And those who made that choice achieved a kind of fellowship with each other that simply made them ignore all of the ambiguities and the destructive behaviors ... seen all around the landscape in that group, your nude encounter groups,  wife-swapping, the breakdown of clerical marriages, just all over the place.

I interviewed still another man who was a trainer at the Disciples of Christ clerical retreats.  And though he gave me a taped interview, he asked if I would keep his name out of the public eye.  He was frank enough to say that the Disciples got into a "sixties mentality."  It was very evident in the leadership, "the young clergy, especially."  He went on to say:

  ... the nude encounter thing, they kept wanting ... nude encounters.  I don't know what difference that would make.  But it was that kind of thinking.  And so they were very liberal; that's the point I'm making.
                                                  ...

We had clinical psychologists who were clergymen.  They ran the groups.  And out of the encounter phenomenon they tried to do all this in the context of the scriptures, with daily worship.  ....

Now to Islam, my main concern.  Muhammad was a charismatic and bellicose leader.  By the early seventh century, his ambitions demanded a formidable army.  But, in order to make an even more powerful presence in that mid-east tribal culture, he fashioned his male-dominated cult.  So, being both theologically clever and severely heretical, he accomplished two things rather quickly: He thumbed his nose at the Jews and, like the Reverend Jim Jones, he laid a religious basis for men to flock to his cause for the most vulgar and perverse of reasons.  That is to say, rather than serve a cause, they would--like their cult leader--be served by a cause, a new cause, one carefully and neatly structured by Muhammad--who knew, of course, that it needed to be garnished with a few obvious truths ( for "the shrewdest act of dishonesty is to use the truth").

Muhammad's tribe grew steadily by way of his charisma and his rules and punishments that all fed into a system sustained by fear and enforced by increasing hierarchies of aides chosen by Muhammad (clerics of this new order, later to be called imams).  Understandably, he came to be seen as god-like--even though he never deviated from his verbal pronouncement that there is no god but Allah, and he, Muhammad, was Allah's prophet.  And when the Jews did not behave (refusing to convert to Islam), his posture of tolerance toward them changed to wrath.  They were then raped and murdered like all of his other enemies.  Then, being no fool, Muhammad fomented a terrifying antipathy toward Jews, allowing him to intensify his ingroup by focusing its negative emotions on the Jewish out-group.  Yet, with every new atrocity, he managed a "revelation from God": an assurance that the action was Allah's will.  It worked smoothly.  For the shock of his followers gradually evolved, by way of Allah's will, into an understanding that God would reward their violence against the infidels.  Soon, in an all-approving atmosphere, they came to rationalize both the torture of  these "enemies of Allah" and the simultaneous rape of their wives.  A brazenly efficient "theology," was it not?  For everything that happened was, according to the prophet's own words, "the will of Allah."  It was therefore not only a vicious and maniacal religion, it was mechanistic--in the sense that it was anti-freedom, predestined, totally deterministic (a dreadful combination).  Islam is, to be sure, a theological disaster.

How could anyone fall for it?  I cannot tell you how often that same question was put to me in regards to Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple cult.  My answer then was identical to my answer now in relation to Islam.  The liberal leaders in California, steeped in their non-think, would not allow a full airing of the Jim Jones horror then.  And the liberal leaders, continuing today in their non-think, will not allow a genuine exposure of the history and horror of Muhammad.  "Oh, we must not be critical of a world religion," they say, "we must understand that, like Christianity, it's a religion of peace."  Oh, must we, really?  Must we come to understand such a spiritually insane comparison?  It is a sickening naiveté that lets these pseudo thinkers fall into a mold made by static and stodgy minds of the university non-think tanks.  It was way too late when the people woke up to Jim Jones.  It's now too late for an effective awakening to the ingredient horror of Islam.  Even though Jim Jones and his Guyana holocaust were the biggest news event of the 1970s decade, the world never saw its true historical significance, never saw it for what it really was: a portent, a metaphor.  It was a dumb but certain signal of what the world would face in another generation.  Just as the liberal minds--pustules of the California disease--encouraged the pathology of Jim Jones to rise and feed and frolic early in the back alleys of an ugly San Francisco political machine, so the scions of those liberals sit in a state of blind impotence, a generation later, while the Islamic horror widens its tentacled grasp upon the world. 

Jones's success was signaled by his having been taken aboard Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Mondale's private jet.  Islam's success is found in the hundreds of new mosques welcomed aboard the American ship of state.

Consider the darlings who--some knowingly, some unknowingly (because of their inability to think freely and logically)--protected Jim Jones:  San Francisco Mayor George Moscone (who defended him to the very end); Ralph Nader (who had quickly informed Jones' friend, District Attorney Joe Freitas of some desperate ex-cult members who were hiding from the cult leader and who feared for their lives); First Lady Rosalyn Carter (she spoke from his pulpit); Vice Presidential candidate Mondale (who, as I said, invited Jones aboard his private jet); Jerry Brown (he spoke at Jones's temple); a San Francisco Chronicle city editor (who attended Jones's cult); Lieutenant Governor  Mervin Dymally (who was very close to Jones); and Cecil Williams (the extremist "Christian" minister of the radical Glide Memorial Methodist Church) who, on his weekly television show, was often seen to be hugging and patting Jim Jones).

Consider now the liberal leaders who continue ignoring the true history of Muhammad and the mega-cult he built.  It is essentially the same crowd: offshoots even less able to think freely and logically than were the liberals who mentored them a generation earlier.   And this brings us to my main point, precisely.  As I see it, only one approach has a chance of making an effective response to an Islamic terrorism that threatens to decimate the world.  The approach involves a full blown exposure of Islam and its pernicious effects.  In addition, though, a piercing broadside should follow each act of Islamic terrorism.  Ultimately the terrorists, inexorably steeped in their cultic love for the "prophet" Muhammad and his perverted construct of "Allah," will come to see that every terrorist action causes Islam to be seen as the spiritual monster that it really is.

It bears repeating that Islam is the outgrowth of a primitive cult that came into being at a time of societal decay in the mid-east world.  To this day it has been pathetically unable to withstand any serious theological scrutiny.  Nevertheless, Islam continues on the path of tyrants.  It slaughters its enemies (Jews, Christians, and non-Muslims of any kind and who are simply termed infidels).  And it starves third world Christians and Jews if they refuse to convert to Islam.  And for 13 centuries, history has shown Islam to be a major dealer in slavery.  On the other hand, it is clear in history that Christianity was the backbone of Western Civilization's sociological progress and its spiritual sanity--besides being the major energy behind the ending of slavery in the western world.  It also was the intellectual and spiritual basis in founding most of the major universities in the western world.  Islam knows by experience that it cannot stand up against orthodox Christianity on any theological ground, not even remotely.  Thus it brings the jihad forward and says to the Muslim masses, "Kill them if they do not join us.  And die in the cause for Allah, if you must.  You will attain eternal bliss, 72 virgins, and the sexual capacity of a hundred men."

Now, I state my deepest convictions and profoundest concerns--though they might appear as highly pessimistic.  In this war against Islamic terrorism, an open, above board, thorough, hard and brave exposure of Islam is the only approach that will accomplish the win.  But the Islamic leaders,  believe that would never happen.  They have the world by its throat.  And with great delight, they will squeeze it ever more tightly.  They are not focused on win or lose.  The means has become the end.  They know the means (the terror and cruelty) is Allah's will.  Their's is a ghastly mentality.  They believe that Islam is enhanced with every horror inflicted upon us.  Thus, the chance is much less than one in ten that we win with any approach other than full exposure.

But the exposure approach itself is unlikely to happen.  For accomplishing it demands wisdom, enlightenment, and a courageous dedication not only on the part of  western theologians, but on the part of media, politicians and academicians--qualities found in some, though rarely in all, of these societal bastions. 

First let's consider the media.  In general, they are other-directed.  That is to say, they have been pressed into a leftist posture by their university journalism teachers.  It was a not too subtle form of  thought control, in fact; and so smoothly accomplished that many of them do not even realize that objectivity is gone from their headlights.  This frail mentality would easily be revealed, were it not for the fact that these liberal media elitists greatly fear being interviewed by someone familiar with their mentality.  Any honest dialogue, you see, would reveal why the liberal media have that well-disguised reluctance to expose Islam.  They would (by default) be put in position of indirectly revealing the spiritual sanity of the historical Christian Faith.  We should never forget the cynical professors who walk like zombies down a dark path toward their goal of eliminating Christianity.

As for politicians, it must be said that they generally yield to the public's sense of needs, values, and priorities--especially when that public sense is strong and unyielding.  This is not so true when the politician is locked safely into a powerful political machine and has ties to the local newspaper.  (A classic example was the severely leftist San Francisco political machine in the mid 1970's.  The Jim Jones cult participated in massive voter fraud, and thus made sure that Willie Brown, George Moscone, and others, sailed through the election. The voting records were stored as usual in the basement of City Hall, but were strangely "lost" within a few weeks.  The San Francisco machine then proceeded to protect the nation's worst cult leader--right up to the day of the mass death in Guyana.)  But my point is that politicians would not be a big stumbling block to the exposure approach if (and that is a critical "if") the other groups I mentioned were to make a courageous effort toward exposing  Islam.  And if such an effort were to succeed in putting Islam's full horror before the public, the politicians would then join in, and we would see Islam lose its place as a world force.  For darkness is devastated when exposed to the light.

Next we make a short consideration of western theologians.  There is a less than even chance that they will have a courageous awakening.  They are dominated by new-age thinking.  For they were captured long ago by sociologists, errant philosophers (with but little capacity for true logic) and by politics.  In addition, they were affected by a false message from the true scientists.  The false message was that, in regard to God and the historical faith, "there is no evidence."  That is false on its face.  What the poor theologians did not realize is that, logically, science may say only that there is no scientific evidence.  It cannot say there is no evidence of any kind.  There are believers who know that there is spiritual evidence.  And science cannot dispute it.  For it cannot address the existence or the non-existence of a reality that, by definition, is beyond the paradigm of science.  What is more, these new-age theologians seem to have missed an even more critical realization, namely, that there is not supposed to be scientific evidence.  Theologians of western civilization would have a tough time responding to the questions I just now cited.  Pride resides stubbornly in their motivational history.  Not only are they entrenched in their unpursued, new-age semi-logic, but they are heavily tied to science.  And coupled with all this is the fact that they are very nervous about being interviewed by someone who knows them and has hobnobbed with them.  They fear the light, obviously.  The real hope for us, then, is that a small minority of them who remain strong in the historical faith would become even bolder--bold enough, say, to force exposure of the more ludicrous aspects of a theology widely purveyed by their postmodernist counterparts, known from here on as the "academia nuts."

Finally we have the matter of the academic world.  It is linked to the theologians, having similar, though well-protected, shortcomings.  But whereas the theologians have lost authority over recent years, the academicians have increased in prominence--especially the psychologists and social psychologists.  (Bear in mind that over two decades ago we entered the "post-Christian era.") Having increased their authority in the universities by way of leftward leaps, these social scientists succeeded in reforming the thoughts of true scientists (less by way of logic and academic prowess, and more by way of political power--able to insist, for example, on the severest forms of political correctness, since they had powerful inroads to federal grants and other funding).  Not only did these social technicians impact the world of true scientists, however, they invaded church activities.  It was especially and fiercely evident in the 1960s when they oversaw those small-group encounter sessions within in the various  major church denominations (read again Dr. John Herbert Otwell's, and other comments, on pages 6 and 7.)

Because of literary constraint, I am far short of venting my full assessment of the Islamic horror that now approaches its peak of power and terror.  The dread within me could not be exaggerated as we are forced, by the regents of political correctness, to drift in idle contemplation of the chaos ahead.  The Islamists are not waiting patiently for us to die from our national disease--an utterly new kind of AIDS (Apathy, Ignorance, and Disabled Sensibilities)--they bring us the poison. The Islamists want the death of us and the death of our Faith.  Our weakening moral and theological backbone indicates an acquired immunity to logic, common sense, wisdom, courage, and spiritual mettle--everything that would keep us healthy in soul and intellect.  Without a good dose of such qualities, the only path ahead (no matter how right our present one may seem) is the way of death.  The Islamists, should we refuse to convert to their strange beliefs, would demand our complete submission to shariah (Islamic law).  If we refuse to submit, then their desire is that we die.

People who labor in doubts at this stage are simply not acquainted with the Koran, the Hadith, or the Shariah (the laws codified from these and other Islamic documents).  Short of making those inquiries, one should study the history of Islamic incursions into Christian and other communities around the world.  The Sudan's recent decades would be especially enlightening: the slaughter of scores of thousands of Christians in addition to tribal religious believers in the south is thoroughly documented.  The Islamic governing authorities in Khartoum direct the army to withhold food, water, and medical aid from those who do not convert and conform.  Khartoum also turns a blind eye when soldiers murder those innocent thousands and then take their property and clothes and what little valuables remained.  Khartoum's soldiers were paid practically nothing.  There was the  tacit message from Khartoum that the soldiers could get their "pay" by way of ravaging the people and property of those Christians and other innocents of Sudan's southern villages.  Other than the Indonesian Muslims' mass killing of Christians in east Timor over the last several decades and Saddam Hussein's enormous genocidal gassing of the Kurds, the Sudan horror is the most massive of modern atrocities. 

In light of all these facts, a major truism still escapes our theologians.  The rest of our academic and media institutions have no capacity to make the connection, and thus have a feeble excuse.  But bolder theologians should spot it.  I refer to the near impossibility of Islamists ever setting up a Jeffersonian democracy such as ours.  Think about it.  Islam is abundantly clear that we humans are not free, that we have absolutely no freedom to choose.  For every action in this whole world is Allah's will.  Nothing happens that is not his will.  He controls every event.  To put it another way (though it appears as an oxymoron), the Islamic world is, at once, spiritual and mechanistic.  Our boldest theologians should not back away from exposing this cultic stupidity.

A serious question is begged in light of what was just said.  How can a people who believe they are not free, how can they ever, set up a government wherein its founding principles are based on a freedom of choice?   I am specifying, in one instance, the freedom to reject God's law and to suffer the penalty instead.  Another instance is the freedom to respond to a sudden illumination, and thereby--in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye--change one's mind as to the nature of the God who loves us.  Or, in yet one more example, I suggest the freedom that would allow one to realize that God made us free, so that our love for Him is real, and is a glorifying and wondrous event in God's heavenly realm.  Lastly I suggest that only in freedom could a Muslim accept the mystery that God loves us even when we reject Him.   In a mythical Islamist democracy, it would be anathema for a Muslim to say to his imam, "I've come to realize that I am truly free, and I now see that God's established order includes my freedom to choose Him or to reject Him.  And I have chosen to accept Him.  And I believe that His Word was manifest in the Lord Jesus Christ."  Since such an action would not be tolerated under shariah, that former Muslim would suffer the most dire of consequences.  Moreover, the terrorists know that if a true democracy were to succeed it would mean that God approves.  And that's simply intolerable. The hope for a Muslim democracy, then:  is it not therefore a meager one?

I conclude now with what I know to be incendiary commentary--especially to the liberal media!  It's best to start with the liberal media and its hidden irony.  They continue referring to terrorists as "Islamic fundamentalists."  A western view of things, coupled with their leftist political bias, has corrupted their thinking and their vision.  They cannot stand orthodox Christianity, but they readily accept the modern, liberal, new-age "Christian" churches.  The media love liberalism and they hate conservatism and orthodoxy.  It is obvious, then, that they will attach the term "fundamentalism" to terrorism.  The media would be mortified to see the flaw in their discernment, the weakness in their reasoning.  For the fact is that the terrorists are liberal Islamists. They have given a very liberal interpretation to the Koran.  The Koran tells Muslims not to kill women and children, but the terrorists liberally interpret the Koran in a way that says you can do so if it furthers the cause of Islam.  In addition, like the liberal "Christians," the liberal Islamists (the terrorists) are driven by political energy (they use the label of Islam but, like the liberal "Christians" who use the label of Christianity, they use the label of Islam as a tool for their cause).  In addition, the terrorists (the liberals) are unabashedly into pornography and promiscuous sexual escapades (also documented by intelligence surveillance of their hotel bills when they stayed in our hotels prior to their assault on Manhattan) which, also, are counter to the Koran (fundamental Islam).  The same goes for the liberal "Christians" who, almost compulsively, do the most outrageous things in the context of the  scriptures (again, see Professor Otwell's and other comments on pages 6 and 7).  The media have made this mistake in labeling precisely because they are theological airheads.  They would not make the scholarly effort to consider labels like "fundamental" and "liberal" in the context of alien theologies.  (A lawyer acquaintance, who had scores of contacts with reporters, told me that they simply were "not very bright.")  I would guess, though, that the media would continue to use the term "fundamental" in regard to terrorism--even if they discovered it was wrong--because they would never use a "good" term like "liberal" in conjunction with anything horrible.  They have the end in mind, you see; and any means is OK if it serves their ends.    

I hope I have made the point of what liberalism really is---in relation to theology.  It might help, if you consider a linear scale from zero to 100, and consider it as being a range from spiritually sound and healthy to intensely evil and unhealthy.  Now, if orthodox Christianity were positioned at zero, then liberal Christianity would take it up to 50 or so.  Fundamental Islam would find itself around 55 or 60, and liberal Islam would take it up to 95 at least (for it is difficult to imagine any massive human endeavor that is more evil than liberal Islam).  To be sure, the liberals in our media would take great issue with what I've just illustrated.  But what is most important to keep in mind is the fact that they are very fearful of sitting down for an unbridled dialogue with someone like me who knows their core (or, better said, their lack of a core).  (Note that I placed fundamental Islam in the "evil" range of the scale.  For even basic, orthodox Islam is already evil--and thus paves the way for the intense evil to which their liberalism has already taken it.)

The government of Canada recently revealed its ignorance of Islam's full horror.  With the best of intentions, it initiated statutes allowing legal disputes to be settled by religious leaders whenever the feuding parties agree to abide by the decision.  Only Muslim women understood the frightening implications.  The Canadian leaders thought the idea would be one small step for cost reduction.  They were too blind to see that it was one big step for shariah.  Such a fear and dread crept over the community of Islamic women, that they went to the Toronto media and complained.  It was the only recourse for them, because to withdraw from the Islamic mega-cult would mean physical and mental abuse without end (as is clearly provided for in the Koran).  The idea of an imam deciding the fate of a woman in dispute with a man, well..., the old metaphor applies: the fox in charge of the chicken coop!  What a sad thing in Canadian history.  What a great thing for the misogynist rulers of Islam whose driving desire is to bring about a local community governed by shariah.  It is 1400 pages of statutory misery for the helpless women of Islam.

I have said what I know to be true.  I make no apologies.  I further challenge any liberal college sociology professor to sit down with me for an honest dialogue wherein logic underlies content and context.  I say to theologians: Let the meeting begin, or admit your fear and reluctance!

                                                 ====================

David Conn
December 12, 2008