Correcting the scare that Muslims are told to kill non-believers, continued

---

My friend replied to my earlier December 30th email about the Muslims told to kill all non-believers, saying

I know you think everything you read on Snopes is the gospel truth, but I wonder who is behind
that website, who writes the comments and what axe do they have to grind?  Who says they have the
only truth???  I will stick with the real Truth that I believe in and remember that most of what
I read in emails, hear on TV or read in an article is probably NOT the truth at all.  I think my
New Year's resolution will be to NOT forward another email....period!  That would also save me a
great deal of time.....I will give that serious thought. 

Thanks again for your comments!!  You always help keep me on the straight and narrow road.

Later that day, I replied:

I don't necessarily think everything on Snopes is 100% true, for human beings can make mistakes. However, I do know that they are trying to report the facts; they have "no axe to grind." Whereas the emails we get forwarded to us, we don't know anything about who originally put them together. They could have purposely made up the "facts," or not tried to make sure of their facts. Or they could be reporting accurately! So it's best to get the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.

Moreover, you'll recall an email I forwarded which said that many of these emails are sent out just to get us to forward them, because a hidden part of the email sends the eddresses back to the originator so he can send out spam.

So it behooves us as responsible people to at least check with Snopes. Then, if we do forward something, we at least know it's true!

As to possibly not forwarding any emails at all, that does need serious thought! But uplifting thoughts and photos, they're worth sharing, don't you think?

"You're welcome" for your compliment about "keeping you on the straight and narrow road." I'd rather not be doing so, but then I think of all the people my friends forward to who forward to others who.... and decide I should try to help keep false emails from reverberating around the Internet for years to come!

-

Obituary for the United States?

Full View

---

January 2, 2010

A friend forwarded a made-up obituary of the U.S. (see below). I forwarded it to some friends, with this note:

I'd read the election statistics before, but I don't recall the addition of the illegals numbers, and what that portends.

The problem with the apathy is that it is so widespread. The Tea Parties and the interest in meetings with Congresscritters were heartwarming, but most congresscritters poohpoohed them. The question is whether or not the people who attended these Parties, etc., will actually get to the polls in the Primaries and the General Election, and whether enough of them attend the party primary meetings election night.

I figure you'll vote, but will you go to the primary precinct convention election night? And vote intelligently that night? And get others to go, too? Don't you agree that, writ large, that's what it's going to take?

Be sure and read to the end…. OBITUARY           Born 1776, Died 2008           It does not hurt to read this several times. Scroll down            Professor Joseph Olson of   Hamline University School of Law,   St. Paul ,   Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November's Presidential election: Number of States won by: Obama: 19    McCain: 29 Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000    McCain: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million                                                     McCain: 143 million Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2    McCain: 2.1    Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.     Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."     Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.     If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders  called  illegals and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the  USA in fewer than five years.         If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

Correcting the scare that Muslims are told to kill all non-believers

December 30, 2009

A friend forwarded to me an email that purported to report a get-together of various religions in which a Muslim imam was forced to acknowledge that all Muslims are required to kill non-believers. Here is my reply:


It really pays to check with Snopes first. See http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/allah.asp. BTW, it was easy to look up. I just put the name of the man in the search box, and the exact email showed up, with Snopes' explanation of the real situation.

Let's look at the bigger picture. We may disagree with others, but surely you understand that we shouldn't tar all of a certain kind of people as inherently evil because of the actions of a few -- whether they are Muslims, blacks, Democrats -- or Christians or Republicans!

Insights on the fear that Muslims will become the largest group in the world

Full View

---

November 20, 2009 (just getting this posted)

A friend recently forwarded some information about a video meant to scare people about the Muslims purposely having large families so they become the dominant group in every country. After I watched it, I emailed my friend:

 

The population problem isn't simple. However, some things to consider: the U.S. used to mostly have large families, but doesn't now. Why? The need for more children was (as is still the case in other cultures) for children to help in the fields, and for making sure enough children survived to adulthood to take care of the parents when they could no longer work. The developed countries no longer have that need, and the women have access to birth-control pills and devices. For the same reasons, probably immigrants from the developing countries will have lower birthrates as they assimilate.

 

Moreover, at various times in the U.S., large numbers of citizens have decried people like the Wops (Italians), the Micks (Irish), and so on. Remember the history books talking about signs that said "No dogs and no Jews allowed"? Or "No Wops need apply"? Yet they all assimilated, and are considered normal Americans -- even though they aren't Protestants. Same thing with Muslims.

 

Also, the video urges us to act. What can we do? Allow no immigrants (but the video says we need Latinos to keep up "American" birth rates, and we haven't been able to keep illegals out anyway). Pay "Americans" to have more children, or change the tax structure to favor those with more children, as long as they aren't Muslims? Make contraception illegal? But we already need more money to keep up basic services such as highways, and are facing really big problems of not enough water in the near future. So is the right solution to increase our population by large amounts?

 

Hope you can see, then, that the best solutions are

 

1) to help legal "furriners" to assimilate, and

2) help the "old countries" to improve their economic and political situations so that fewer people feel compelled to move to the developed countries. Because people don't emigrate if they can do well in their own countries.

 

Hope this helps your thinking! 

---

Clean up the corruption in Congress?

A friend forwarded an email from Vincent Latona <vlatona@cox.net> dated September 29, 2009. He started off

The entire Congress of the United States is corrupt. And
 I mean both Houses and I mean both major parties.

 I realize that a few Members of each House are trustworthy, but, as a  group
 they are absolutely the most corrupt bunch  to ever disgrace our Nation.
  

 He explained his plan: don't vote for any incumbent in the 2010 national elections. That would mean 435 new representatives, and 33 new senators. Then vote out another 1/3 of the senators in 2012, and the final third in 2014. He ended,

IF YOU LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING IN OUR COUNTRY, THEN DO NOTHING.........

 

 

My Response:

 

I'm certainly in favor of this, but "it ain't going to happen." The reason is that so few voters pay any attention to all these shenanigans. They just vote for whoseever name sounds familiar, or someone they voted for before. For example, Sen. Robert Byrd has been in for at least three decades, getting billions of dollars of Fed money -- our money -- for his constituents. They don't care that their Fed largesse is gotten from the hard-earned taxes of others, they just keep voting Byrd in again.
 

Moreover, the special interests have bought most of the congresscritters, so they're going to pay big money for ads touting their bought people. So the common people don't even hear about better choices -- or they do, because they've also been bought..
 

Thirdly, much of the business of Congress is done by bureaucrats and staff. New congresspeople hire the staff of the defeated congresspeople. The bureaucrats keep going as usual. And the special interests who have already made it possible for the congresspeople to get elected, become very cozy with them, writing the laws for them, etc.

Solutions?
1) Public money only for all candidates, whether from the two main parties, or any other.
2) Better education in schools of what to look for in deciding whom to vote for.
3) Complete exclusion of all special interests from working with congresspeople or their staffs. And so on.

Chances of the first and third becoming law? Close to zero -- because the bought congresspeople have to pass them! But you've got to keep trying, right?

A friend forwarded to me an email from Tim Waldmon of American Family Association. I wrote back to my friend my views on this. I have put my rejoinder below the first part of the AFA email:

One company says 'Yes' to Christmas, and one says 'No'

September 22, 2009

Dear Ann,

A few years ago American Family Association noticed a trend among major corporations (which profit from Christmas sales) not wanting to recognize Christmas. Since that time we have been making the public aware of these companies while applauding those companies which are not making the "politically correct" decision to censor the word "Christmas."

We are pleased to see the Sears company is already offering a "Christmas Club" on its website. You may recall, AFA asked our supporters to contact Sears three years ago when it too was avoiding the word and Sears responding positively. Thank Sears the next time you visit one of their stores.

Well known retailer The Gap, on the other hand, has clearly indicated it WILL NOT use the term "Christmas" in any of its promotional advertising again this year. AFA has repeatedly contacted The Gap and spokesmen say they "don't want to offend anyone" by using the word Christmas. The Gap also owns Old Navy and Banana Republic.

We want you to stand with us and other Christians in proclaiming that Christmas is special, not just any winter holiday. And the gift buying that Americans do for one another is because of Christmas.


My rejoinder: 

Let's think about this celebration of Christmas in the stores. A couple of centuries ago, most Christians did not celebrate Christmas, or certainly did not concern themselves with bought presents. These days, the stores routinely start touting Christmas or holiday sales at least by the time Halloween is over. Many people say they plan to spend almost a thousand dollars on presents, even if it takes them a year to pay off the credit cards. Is that wise?

This is all commercial, not having anything to do with the real value of Christmas. Don't you think Jesus would be appalled by the lack of spiritual values in all this celebration? Wouldn't you think that true Christians would shun such commerciality? Shouldn't Christians cut down considerably on this annual, months-long, gift-giving and partying spree? If they truly want to celebrate Jesus' birth, wouldn't they want to give to the poor, engage in charitable work, try harder to become more spiritual, etc?

And about the companies advertising "Christmas" vs. "holidays"? Millions of Americans are not Christian, but some enjoy the concept of Santa Claus, which isn't religious. Also, the Jews have a holiday, often celebrated during the same period. Why should the companies antagonize these millions of customers by focusing solely on Christmas? 

I would think that adherents of other religions (or none) would feel excluded, feel like they are second-class citizens, during a major activity of the country if the activity is exclusively called "Christmas sales." This would be particularly galling, since the majority of "Christians" limit their religious activities to, at most, a Christmas-eve service.