THE TROUBLE WITH THE MUSLIM RELIGION

THE TROUBLE WITH THE MUSLIM RELIGION

I wrote a small bit on this topic before. Although there is much violence in the Koran, one might say there is also considerable violence in the Old Testament. There is little or no violence in the New Testament because most of what is there is influenced by the teachings of Jesus Christ, who preached love, tolerance and peace as do some of the Far Eastern Religions such as Buddhism.

We can study history to know that although the New Testament teaches love and peace, there were times in the Catholic Church when love and peace were not practiced. If we just consider the brief time when the Inquisition was underway, when individuals were killed because they were believed to have deviated from the teachings of the Church. Although the Church was guided by the teachings of the New Testament, the church leaders were not. The Church was ruled by tyrants who acted similar to many Muslim clerics in power today.

How often do we hear a Muslim cleric teaching that if you are a suicide bomber you will not be rewarded with 70 virgins in heaven? There would not be any suicide bombers if the potential bomber realized there would be NO rewards to his actions. But the Mullahs are silent on this issue. Why? Do the moderate Mullahs fear retribution from the more radical among them, or do they really believe the myth of the virgin reward? We do not know the answer. Unless the Mullahs change what they preach the suicide bombers will continue, mark m word. We must also consider that the Koran delineates the virgin rewards to someone who dies defending the faith.

Another very serious problem with the Muslim religion is the fact that each Mullah cleric is free to interpret the Koran as he sees fit. This is different, especially with the Catholic religion of which I know more. In the Catholic religion, although Bishops are the ultimate authority in interpreting the Bible, they are guided by what the Pope says, Bishops do not have to follow what the Pope dictates. The only time Bishops must follow what the Pope says is when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, that is, when the Pope says he has had a direct communication from God. This occurs very rarely. The last time the Pope spoke ex cathedra occurred in 1950. Invocations of the Pope's Solemn (or "Extraordinary") Magisterium are rare. Since 1870 only one statement exercising the Solemn Magisterium has been made, Pope Pius XII's dogma on the "Assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven" in 1950. The Papacy is not dumb. The Papacy must insure that what the Pope dictates ex cathedra cannot be shown to be false at a later date because if this occurred then God would have been wrong. This cannot happen. Let us see whether someone can dispute te fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not assumed into heaven!

In my opinion, much of the real trouble in the Middle East began when we supported the ouster of the Shaw of Iran who definitely was a dictator. But what did we do? We strongly supported the return to Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini. We essentially replaced one dictator with another who talked with God. Which would you rather have? Give me the run-of-the-mill dictator any day. Among the many things that President Carter did were to return the Panama Canal to Panama, which turned out to be a good thing, and the bringing back of the Ayatollah, which was a very bad thing. Oh well there is a balance between good and bad!

With the latter situation we emboldened the radical elements of the Muslim religion. The common people living in the Muslim-controlled Arabian countries do not know anything. The masses are quite stupid and directed and controlled by the Muslim clerics who are the real culprits. Most of them are no different from their prophet, Mohamed, who spread his religion “by the sword.” If you did not convert, you were simply killed. We know these things from history. In these days of political correctness, you cannot talk about these things even though they are correct and true.

In the US we are ignoring the basic problem of “Mullahs gone wild.” We are completely ignoring people who preach sedition. If a Mullah is preaching overthrow of the government, we should recognize this as sedition, arrest them, and put them in jail in solitary confinement where they will be unable to influence others. Harsh treatment, but do you have a better way to deal with the problem?
I do not profess to know it all, but I do know something: one has to cut out the cancer to save the rest of the body; one has to isolate those who preach sedition or sedition will occur; one has to destroy the terrorists to prevent terrorism. This is so logical, I do not understand why more do not appreciate it. We need to take a hard look at those Mullahs around the world who preach sedition. We ask Saudi Arabia to do this, but we do no do it ourselves. We ask Saudi Arabia because we know they can do it but do not want to. We do not do it in our own country because “we have the Constitution and the ACLU!”

Wake up America before it is too late.

nicola michael c. Tauraso, M.D.
Director, Tauraso Medical Clinic
www.drtauraso.com

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

THE ART AND SCIENCE OF POLITICAL INTERFERENCE

The Shaw of Iran and the Ayatollah Khomeini

Does anyone remember when because of turmoil in Iran with the Shaw of Iran we decided to back those forces wanting to return the Ayatollah Khomeini from France where he was in exile? And so in our attempt to solve another nation’s problem we supported the replacement of one dictator with a dictator who talked with God. The Grand Ayatollah eventually was to drive Iran into being one of the greatest enemies of the West if not the ENTIRE world.

We accomplished this because we are bleeding liberals who like to interfere with others because we know what is best for them. The Shaw of Iran might have been a dictator but he was trying to modernize his country, and, when someone is trying to change the habits of an entire country, there will be turmoil. Boy, did we create the mess now in Iran.

The Replacement of Saddam Hussein with What We Now Have

Does anyone remember when we interfered again with the replacement of Saddam Hussein who was keeping Iran busy defending itself to the point that Iran did not have the time or inclination to direct it negative energies against the West. In our attempt to change the world we interfere with the status quo, and create more problems. If we had left Saddam alone he would have continued to harass Iran and the little despotic tyrant presently leading Iran would barely have the time to trim his beard. Boy are we creating a mess again in Iran.

Why do we not just let the Arabs kill themselves. They have been doing it for years. They have become good at it, and let them continue to do what they do best. They are a violent people because their religion is violent and no matter what we do we will never change their status quo. I fully well realize this is not the politically correct thing to say, but the truth is the truth no matter how one slices the pie or parse the words.

Our Interference in Pakistan

Here we are doing it again in Pakistan. Because of perceived discontent in Pakistan and wanting to support Banizir Bhutto we have asked the present President Mushariff to step down as Chief of the Army. Our President is Commander-in-Chief of our armies. Why cannot Mushariff be the same? He has been a friend of the US and has successfully controlled the many terrorists in his country by having a strong army. Who thinks that Bhutto can do any better. She is now back in Pakistan. She is making no attempt to compromise with Mushariff. It is all a power struggle. Do we really believe that a woman would be a better leader or be any different than their male counterparts? Does anyone remember Golda Maier, Indira Ghandi, and the Iron Lady of Great Britain, Margaret Thatcher? Were these women leaders any different from their male counterparts? Should I even attempt to mention Hillary Clinton? Women would like for us to believe that their nurturing qualities would make them leaders who would promote peace throughout the world. The women leaders I have already mentioned surely do not add credence to that belief. Please, don’t make me laugh!

My point is why do we want to disturb the status quo for an unknown entity which might result in potentially disastrous consequences? Have we not learned our lessons? We have interfered with South American politics so often over the years that many South American countries do not trust us anymore. In our belief that others might fare better we disturb the balance – the status quo – which already exists. Not everyone thinks as we do. Basically, we come from an Anglo Saxon political belief system. This may change in time and probably will as the ethnic balance in the US changes. We do not think like Latinos or even Arabians. It is this situation that has precluded our resolution of the problems with Cuba and with the monkey who leads Venezuela. If we understood Latinos we could have completely averted a dispute with Castro. When Castro came to the US to address the United Nations, he wanted so much to have an audience with President Eisenhower who rebuked him. Had we understood the Latino temperament we would have known that when we insult a Latino they usually make friends with our greatest enemy. And this is what subsequently happened. If Eisenhower was smart, he would have invited Castro for a glass of wine or Cuban rum. That, I believe would have been the beginning of an American/Cuban love fest which would have continued to this day.

Castro was in love with the US. This is evidenced by the recent discovery in the archives of President Roosevelt where there was found a letter from a young Castro asking for $10.00 which I do not think Roosevelt ever sent him.

We are a good people but we have, or the liberals have, the mistaken belief that we have the solution to the world’s problems. This, of course, is ludicrous, because we cannot even solve our own problems!

nicola michael c. Tauraso, M.D.
Director, Tauraso Medical Clinic
www.drtauraso.com.