Muslims urged to accept minorities

BARNEY ZWARTZ

December 6, 2009

MUSLIMS must tackle injustices and corruption in their own countries before they can point a finger at the West, former Malaysian deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim said in Melbourne yesterday.

''How Islam treats minorities is excessive, no question - Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews. We cannot condone injustice. We must condemn atrocities against minorities in Muslim societies and against Muslims in Christian societies,'' he told the Parliament of the World Religions.

Now a leading opposition leader, Mr Anwar said Muslim countries faced huge Islamophobia, including an unequal American approach to Israel and Palestine and concerns about nuclear non-proliferation with some countries but not others (a reference to Israel).

But he told the key session on Islam and politics: ''You can't talk all the time about the injustice of the West if you have injustice in your own land, such as Christians and Hindus in Muslim countries.

''Muslims were upset about the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib [in Iraq], but what about conditions in Muslim prisons. If you refuse to talk about that you have no standing to talk about the first.''

Mr Anwar said there was no reason why Islamic parties should not contest elections. ''There is suspicion that Islamic political parties will use democracy as a vehicle and, when they come to power, marginalise other groups and cancel elections. There will be a 100 per cent vote, one time.''

But there were Christian Democrat parties, Hindu parties and Buddhist parties, while Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Turkey had clear constitutional guidelines. ''So why must Muslims have a secular fundamentalist position? What is important is to ensure that Islamic parties are not factional or unjust when in power.''

Abdullah Saeed, professor of Islamic Studies at Melbourne University, said the question of Islam and politics had been one of the most hotly debated topics for Muslims since the middle of the 19th century.

''At one end of the continuum is the view that it's absolutely essential for Muslims to establish an Islamic state, that Islam is a religion and a state, though Muslims have never experienced this ideal.

''At the other extreme, Islam is simply an ethical and moral system, a relationship between the person and God, with no need for politics.''

Professor Saeed said critics pointed out that an Islamic state was not a traditional idea but a 20th century construct, while Muslim governments tended to oppress women and non-Muslims, were autocratic and did not respect rights.

Tariq Ramadan, one of Europe's leading Muslim spokesmen, said democracy and Islam were fully compatible, but many Muslims misunderstood secularism as meaning no religion. Secularism in Muslim-majority countries did not mean democracy, but the opposite: dictators.

''It's a question of authority. When it comes to the private sphere, the authority God has over you is private. When it comes to the public sphere, it should be negotiated among the public.'' Dr Ramadan said the idea of collective negotiated authority went back to the prophet Muhammad, who more than once followed the majority against his own opinion.

Iranian delegate Mahdi Mostafavi said governments should fulfil the main purpose of man's creation and ensure society was obedient to God.

He said Muslims should not be subservient to any power that went against the will of God, who gave governments their legitimacy.

''The government should strive for material prosperity but also for man's exaltation in his humanity. Unfortunately this is neglected by most governments. Within the framework of God's laws, people should be free.''

Questioned by a leading Melbourne Muslim, Rachel Woodlock, about the treatment of Baha'is in Iran, Dr Mostafavi simply denied that any minorities in Iran faced ill-treatment. Ms Woodlock replied: ''You have no credibility at all.''

Link

Having spent nearly 30 years in Iran and Saudi Arabia, I can assure you that "tolerance" of another religion is not a subject that is well received in either country.

Iran used to have some tolerance but, having been kicked out when Khomaini returned in 1979, I cannot speak for it today. I have heard the government and Mullahs still allow some Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to exist.

Saudi Arabia having tolerance is a no-go.

I saw an interview with a former Palestinian terrorist a few years ago. He rethought his position when he noticed how Muslims, Christians, etc were free to practice their own religion in Israel but how only Islam was allowed in most Muslim-countries.

Having spent nearly 30 years in Iran and Saudi Arabia, I can assure you that "tolerance" of another religion is not a subject that is well received in either country.

Iran used to have some tolerance but, having been kicked out when Khomaini returned in 1979, I cannot speak for it today. I have heard the government and Mullahs still allow some Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to exist.

Saudi Arabia having tolerance is a no-go.

both correct. but as far as Iran is concerned "some" should be replaced with "all" churches and synagogues. i always found it strange that shia Iran recognises Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" whereas wahhabi sunni Saudi Arabia acknowledges that fact but is extremely intolerant.

The large Muslim countries of Malaysia and Indonesia have substantial Christian, Hindu and Buddhist communities.

Abolish all religion, I say. If they can't play nicely together, and argue over the toys (religions) then take away the toys.

OK, youse <deleted> Kiwi Jedi Knights are gonna be the first to go!

Having spent nearly 30 years in Iran and Saudi Arabia, I can assure you that "tolerance" of another religion is not a subject that is well received in either country.

Iran used to have some tolerance but, having been kicked out when Khomaini returned in 1979, I cannot speak for it today. I have heard the government and Mullahs still allow some Christian churches and Jewish synagogues to exist.

Saudi Arabia having tolerance is a no-go.

both correct. but as far as Iran is concerned "some" should be replaced with "all" churches and synagogues. i always found it strange that shia Iran recognises Jews and Christians as "People of the Book" whereas wahhabi sunni Saudi Arabia acknowledges that fact but is extremely intolerant.

What some of my friends in Iran have told me is the Mullahs did not close any existing churches or synagogues, but they are not permitting any new ones to spring up. As we all know, this can change with the wind.

The Zoroastrian Fire Temple outside Isfahan was considered a religous relic when I was last there. Interesting place, indeed.

One of the things I cannot forgive is the destruction of history by religious vandals.

I cursed the Taliban when they dynamited the Buddha's at Bamyan but, take it from me, "well meaning" Christians have destroyed more statues and temples than all the earthquakes since time began.

strange about saudi...less tolerant than Iran but an ally of the US...

saudi is basically run by clerics who are strict salafist/wahabbi adherents as it is the place of the 'two holy sites' and the king hasta do what they say...some dumbfcuk mullah there issued a fatwah a couple of years ago to declare that anyone that watched western TV during ramadan should be put to death...he was finally repudiated more than a year later...

allahu akbar...

Insha'Allah

OK, youse <deleted> Kiwi Jedi Knights are gonna be the first to go!

Don't worry Harcourt, your Aussie Jedi Knight brotha has you covered from Oz

OK, youse <deleted> Kiwi Jedi Knights are gonna be the first to go!

Don't worry Harcourt, your Aussie Jedi Knight brotha has you covered from Oz

Mark Knoffler singing "Brothers In Arms"....brings a tear to my eye. Thanks cousy-from-over-the-ditch. May the Force be with you

strange about saudi...less tolerant than Iran but an ally of the US...

Not so strange. Thirty years ago last month Iranians took over the US Embassy and held over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. "Death to America" has been their mantra ever since. Iran also openly funds, trains & supports terrorists against America and its allies (re:Israel). Perhaps if the Iranians were more "subtle" like the Saudis then relations would be different.

strange about saudi...less tolerant than Iran but an ally of the US...

Not so strange. Thirty years ago last month Iranians took over the US Embassy and held over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. "Death to America" has been their mantra ever since. Iran also openly funds, trains & supports terrorists against America and its allies (re:Israel). Perhaps if the Iranians were more "subtle" like the Saudis then relations would be different.

Those terrible Iranians!

So tell me, why did they take the hostages in the first place?

And why is Israel such a venerated ally while it openly contravenes so many international laws re human rights, nuclear proliferation etc?

strange about saudi...less tolerant than Iran but an ally of the US...

Not so strange. Thirty years ago last month Iranians took over the US Embassy and held over 50 Americans hostage for 444 days. "Death to America" has been their mantra ever since. Iran also openly funds, trains & supports terrorists against America and its allies (re:Israel). Perhaps if the Iranians were more "subtle" like the Saudis then relations would be different.

Those terrible Iranians!

So tell me, why did they take the hostages in the first place?

And why is Israel such a venerated ally while it openly contravenes so many international laws re human rights, nuclear proliferation etc?

I await with bated breath your explanation as to why the Embassy was taken.

Why not give us your explanation?

No, the point of the question is to see you two patriots' view.

As is the point of the "Isreal the venerated ally" question, which you seem to avoid.

No, the point of the question is to see you two patriots' view.

As is the point of the "Isreal the venerated ally" question, which you seem to avoid.

Well, they took over the embassy because of something America did of course. And they knew Jimmy Carter wouldn't do anything about it - and they were right. I'm still surprised that the Ayatollah gave up his cushy exile in Paris to return to Iran.

As for Israel, considering their small size and being surrounded by enemies (with over 20 times Israel's population) that have invaded them in the past and to this day call for their destruction, if anyone deserves nukes it's Israel. But they have never admitted to having them and they have never threatened their neighbors or called for their destruction so no harm done if they do have them, IMO.

No, the point of the question is to see you two patriots' view.

As is the point of the "Isreal the venerated ally" question, which you seem to avoid.

To put your answer in it's proper context..."I really don't know why the Embassy was taken or why Israel is so friendly with the satanic US. Will somebody please tell me?"

Just as I thought, all fluff and little substance.

Anybody who possesses nuclear weapon since 1950 is demonically insane. Even Billy Graham condemned nuclear warfare.

Anybody who possesses nuclear weapon since 1950 is demonically insane. Even Billy Graham condemned nuclear warfare.

The US had nuclear weapons prior to 1950. Does that exclude them from the "demonically insane" club?

Billy Graham condemned more than nuclear warfare. A little google effort on your part will bring up a host of subjects he was not in favor of.

That was not one of your more brilliant posts. It ranks right up there with your Rape of Nanking comparison.

Chucky, your ally in this debate has recently shown the true colour of the right wing redneck angle in the debate.

Seeing as you and koheesti are so like minded, I wonder if you too, are so redneck, narrow-minded, and illogical.

Chucky, your ally in this debate has recently shown the true colour of the right wing redneck angle in the debate.

Seeing as you and koheesti are so like minded, I wonder if you too, are so redneck, narrow-minded, and illogical.

Harry:

Perhaps I am. I don't know koheesti personally but he seems considerably more open-minded and available for discussion than do you and others of your clan.

You have dismissed him from the discussion on Afghanistan, as though it were your right to do so. What is any more narrow minded and illogical than your actions in that thread.

I have asked you to give us your reasons for the Tehran Embassy takeover and you merely dismissed me with the back of your hand. I am still awaiting your anwer on that question.

Now I have another question for you. Why are you so anti-Israeli? You equate Arafat to Mandela and call him a freedom fighter. I assume you feel the Israeli government has no right to exist, which is what Arafat believed, along with Admadinajad and most other Muslim leaders. Most of them would like nothing better than to see Tel Aviv wiped off the face of the earth. The funny thing is, though, they really don't give a whit about the Palestinians either.

Do you think Israel has a right to exist or should it be done away with?

I would appreciate it if you could somehow refrain from preaching to me. I would consider your sermons nearly as hypocritical as a German citizen sermonizing me on the US War with Mexico in 1846.

Chucky, your ally in this debate has recently shown the true colour of the right wing redneck angle in the debate.

Seeing as you and koheesti are so like minded, I wonder if you too, are so redneck, narrow-minded, and illogical.

Harry:

Perhaps I am. I don't know koheesti personally but he seems considerably more open-minded and available for discussion than do you and others of your clan.

You have dismissed him from the discussion on Afghanistan, as though it were your right to do so. What is any more narrow minded and illogical than your actions in that thread.

I have asked you to give us your reasons for the Tehran Embassy takeover and you merely dismissed me with the back of your hand. I am still awaiting your anwer on that question.

Now I have another question for you. Why are you so anti-Israeli? You equate Arafat to Mandela and call him a freedom fighter. I assume you feel the Israeli government has no right to exist, which is what Arafat believed, along with Admadinajad and most other Muslim leaders. Most of them would like nothing better than to see Tel Aviv wiped off the face of the earth. The funny thing is, though, they really don't give a whit about the Palestinians either.

Do you think Israel has a right to exist or should it be done away with?

I would appreciate it if you could somehow refrain from preaching to me. I would consider your sermons nearly as hypocritical as a German citizen sermonizing me on the US War with Mexico in 1846.

Ok...first, sorry for the "Chucky"....it was uncalled for.

Briefly on your like-minded "team mate"..... calling an entire race of people peadophiles is not, "considerably more open-minded and available for discussion" than anybody else in this discussion.

Dismissing whatever I say out of hand, with no counter but unreasoned contradiction IS narrow minded and illogical .

I CAN personally dismiss him from any discussion I am involved with. I have no authority in this forum, but just as I can say "welcome" to anybody, I can say "bugger off"....he can take it as he will. It is not a matter of logic, but of personalities.

I say again to him, "Bugger off...I personally do not want to have any further discussion with you".

Actually, I asked YOU about the Iran hostage crisis.....your answer was to ask me back.

There was no backhanding about my response to that.

I am still waiting for YOUR reply.

Anti-Israel? Yes. I am resentfull of the spoilt child (the one that gets special treatment). I dislike the arrogant child (the one that considers itself above all others). I despise the nasty child (the one that shows cruelty to innocent victims).

Israel, the state, was created in 1947. All well and good (debatably) to set up a bunch of refugees, to relocate them from war-torn Europe....but now those refugees (or their 2nd gen ancestors) consider and treat the native population as 2nd class citizens, deny them basic human rights, and evict them from their ancestral homes.

It's just not a fair go....in my book.

Do you really think I'm preaching and sermonising????

Anybody who possesses nuclear weapon since 1950 is demonically insane. Even Billy Graham condemned nuclear warfare.

The US had nuclear weapons prior to 1950. Does that exclude them from the "demonically insane" club?

Billy Graham condemned more than nuclear warfare. A little google effort on your part will bring up a host of subjects he was not in favor of.

That was not one of your more brilliant posts. It ranks right up there with your Rape of Nanking comparison.

A review of all of Dr. Graham's scope of pronouncements would take us off topic. What is notable is that he stood with GHW Bush and said it was a just war to kill Muslims in Iraq (a damned lie). At least he agreed with popes that nuclear warfare was totally immoral. Yes, Truman was demonically insane in 1945.

Anybody who possesses nuclear weapon since 1950 is demonically insane. Even Billy Graham condemned nuclear warfare.

The US had nuclear weapons prior to 1950. Does that exclude them from the "demonically insane" club?

Billy Graham condemned more than nuclear warfare. A little google effort on your part will bring up a host of subjects he was not in favor of.

That was not one of your more brilliant posts. It ranks right up there with your Rape of Nanking comparison.

A review of all of Dr. Graham's scope of pronouncements would take us off topic. What is notable is that he stood with GHW Bush and said it was a just war to kill Muslims in Iraq (a damned lie). At least he agreed with popes that nuclear warfare was totally immoral. Yes, Truman was demonically insane in 1945.

PeaceBlondie:

Would you be kind enough to provide a link showing where Billy Graham said it was a just war to kill Muslims? That would be worth seeing.

In 1945 the US had the following options:

1. Keep firebombing the cities of Japan and hope they capitulated, thus negating the need for an invasion. It is unlikely the Japanese would ever surrender under these conditions.

2. After the firebombing attempt failed to produce surrender, launch a massive invasion on the beaches of Japan with some 800,000 US troops being stationed in the area. Then fight all the way to Tokyo, killing and being killed.

3. Drop a couple of nuclear weapons and obtain the surrender of the Emperor.

Estimated deaths using options 1) and 2) were in the neighborhood of 600,000 US deaths and 3-5 million Japanese killed and injured. These estimates vary widely and are in various places in Google.

Option 3) was used and resulted in the deaths of around 250,000 Japanese citizens. It further emboldened Russia into declaring war on Japan, which hurried along the Japanese Imperial household decision making process leading to surrender.

While I regret the death of 250,000 Japanese civilians and military personnel, I would have regretted the decision to invade even more when one considers the number of deaths that would have occurred as a result of the invasion.

Now how would you, as a good rabid anti-war Texas Anabaptist, have handled the thorny situation that Truman faced?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mr. Harcourt:

I will respond tomorrow. Tonight I am tired.

Briefly on your like-minded "team mate"..... calling an entire race of people peadophiles is not, "considerably more open-minded and available for discussion" than anybody else in this discussion.

Reading comprehension isn't one of you strong points, is it? One, I never called an "entire race" anything. If you are referring to my post remark about why Germans come to Thailand, you saw where I said it was in done in jest but you chose to ignore it.

I CAN personally dismiss him from any discussion I am involved with. I have no authority in this forum, but just as I can say "welcome" to anybody, I can say "bugger off"....he can take it as he will. It is not a matter of logic, but of personalities.

I say again to him, "Bugger off...I personally do not want to have any further discussion with you".

I understand why you feel this way. Every time you make a crazy claim, I shoot it down making you feel like a buffoon.

Israel, the state, was created in 1947. All well and good (debatably) to set up a bunch of refugees, to relocate them from war-torn Europe....but now those refugees (or their 2nd gen ancestors) consider and treat the native population as 2nd class citizens, deny them basic human rights, and evict them from their ancestral homes.

It's just not a fair go....in my book.

Jews were in what is modern day Israel more than a millennium before the muslims. So who is the "invader"? Besides, blame the Brits for setting that one up - and with dividing Iraq while you're at it.

Briefly on your like-minded "team mate"..... calling an entire race of people peadophiles is not, "considerably more open-minded and available for discussion" than anybody else in this discussion.

Reading comprehension isn't one of you strong points, is it? One, I never called an "entire race" anything. If you are referring to my post remark about why Germans come to Thailand, you saw where I said it was in done in jest but you chose to ignore it.

I CAN personally dismiss him from any discussion I am involved with. I have no authority in this forum, but just as I can say "welcome" to anybody, I can say "bugger off"....he can take it as he will. It is not a matter of logic, but of personalities.

I say again to him, "Bugger off...I personally do not want to have any further discussion with you".

I understand why you feel this way. Every time you make a crazy claim, I shoot it down making you feel like a buffoon.

Israel, the state, was created in 1947. All well and good (debatably) to set up a bunch of refugees, to relocate them from war-torn Europe....but now those refugees (or their 2nd gen ancestors) consider and treat the native population as 2nd class citizens, deny them basic human rights, and evict them from their ancestral homes.

It's just not a fair go....in my book.

Jews were in what is modern day Israel more than a millennium before the muslims. So who is the "invader"? Besides, blame the Brits for setting that one up - and with dividing Iraq while you're at it.

I can't resist making one last reply: Nowhere, nowhere at all, have you come even close to shooting me down, let alone making me feel like a bufoon.

You are the failure at reading comprehension as is shown by your use of the word "jest", borrowed/quoted from where I used it in regard to the said German comment you made.

I can't resist making one last reply:

blah, blah, blah. I knew it was too good to be true that you would stop.

Chucky, your ally in this debate has recently shown the true colour of the right wing redneck angle in the debate.

Seeing as you and koheesti are so like minded, I wonder if you too, are so redneck, narrow-minded, and illogical.

Harry:

Perhaps I am. I don't know koheesti personally but he seems considerably more open-minded and available for discussion than do you and others of your clan.

You have dismissed him from the discussion on Afghanistan, as though it were your right to do so. What is any more narrow minded and illogical than your actions in that thread.

I have asked you to give us your reasons for the Tehran Embassy takeover and you merely dismissed me with the back of your hand. I am still awaiting your anwer on that question.

Now I have another question for you. Why are you so anti-Israeli? You equate Arafat to Mandela and call him a freedom fighter. I assume you feel the Israeli government has no right to exist, which is what Arafat believed, along with Admadinajad and most other Muslim leaders. Most of them would like nothing better than to see Tel Aviv wiped off the face of the earth. The funny thing is, though, they really don't give a whit about the Palestinians either.

Do you think Israel has a right to exist or should it be done away with?

I would appreciate it if you could somehow refrain from preaching to me. I would consider your sermons nearly as hypocritical as a German citizen sermonizing me on the US War with Mexico in 1846.

Ok...first, sorry for the "Chucky"....it was uncalled for.

Briefly on your like-minded "team mate"..... calling an entire race of people peadophiles is not, "considerably more open-minded and available for discussion" than anybody else in this discussion.

Dismissing whatever I say out of hand, with no counter but unreasoned contradiction IS narrow minded and illogical .

I CAN personally dismiss him from any discussion I am involved with. I have no authority in this forum, but just as I can say "welcome" to anybody, I can say "bugger off"....he can take it as he will. It is not a matter of logic, but of personalities.

I say again to him, "Bugger off...I personally do not want to have any further discussion with you".

Actually, I asked YOU about the Iran hostage crisis.....your answer was to ask me back.

There was no backhanding about my response to that.

I am still waiting for YOUR reply.

Anti-Israel? Yes. I am resentfull of the spoilt child (the one that gets special treatment). I dislike the arrogant child (the one that considers itself above all others). I despise the nasty child (the one that shows cruelty to innocent victims).

Israel, the state, was created in 1947. All well and good (debatably) to set up a bunch of refugees, to relocate them from war-torn Europe....but now those refugees (or their 2nd gen ancestors) consider and treat the native population as 2nd class citizens, deny them basic human rights, and evict them from their ancestral homes.

It's just not a fair go....in my book.

Do you really think I'm preaching and sermonising????

In response to your last question the answer is, yes. At times you talk down to people, but that might just be my impression and a matter of semantics more than anything else.

Now, perhaps we can discuss the questions in front of us.

The taking of the Embassy was primarily due to the fact the Revolution was losing steam. The Iranian middle class had already begun to become disenchanted with the Islamic Revolution and grumbling began in their ranks. Khomeini did not feel the street people that fed the revolution were up to continuing it without a cause. He, therefore, needed a rallying point in which to get all his people to pull together, and that rallying point was the Great Satan, the US, enbodied in the form of the US embassy in Tehran.

The US provided the reasoning in the minds of the Iranians for the takeover by permitting the Shah to enter the US for medical purposes. He had terminal cancer at the time. In addition, the Carter administration had refused to return monies the Shah had deposited in US banks which the Mullahs believed was their money. The third motivator was Carter was seen as a weak President, wanting to rely on tough diplomacy and grand talk. (Does this sound familiar in today's world?)

All of these, and probably many more events I know nothing about, constituted the driving force behind the takeover. It was planned by the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Council and carried out by the Revolutionary Guard, and should have been considered an act of war against the US.

The takeover had nothing to do with Elliott Roosevelt riding a tank down Takhte Jamshid street in 1953 putting the Shah back in power. The US was well liked and those of us that were there had a very pleasant life, even during most of the revolution. Things got a little dicey at the end of 1978 and early 1979 but the animosity still wasn't directed against the US. Many of us carried two large photos in our cars. When we were in the northern part of the city we had a picture of the Shah in a prominent position. When we went to the Bazaar, we put up Khomeini's picture. The US became the Great Satan when it became politically expedient for the Mullah's to make that claim.

If we should ever meet and still be talking in a civil manner, I can tell you some rather personal stories relating to events after the takeover, including the failed rescue attempt some months later. It isn't something I wish to post on an open forum.

Does this answer the question about the US Embassy in Tehran?

Now for a short discussion on Israel and why they are allies with the US. The short answer is because the US government and, frankly many of the citizenry, feel the Israelis are entitled to the homeland the British established with the Balfour Declaration and then left them in 1948. We feel they have the right to defend that homeland. The US has armed them and has aided them when they are attacked by their neighbors. I would expect even Obama will continue this policy.

They have been attacked many times and have taken military action to defend themselves. Have they gone too far at times? Probably they have.

I would also expect the UK, US, Russia, Germany, Japan and a host of other nations have gone too far in war as well. I am certain the Palestinians and other Arab countries have gone too far.

Your admiration of Yasser Arafat has me confused. Arafat was very simply one of the first Islamic terrorists. He was born in Egypt and later in life adopted the Palestinian cause as his own. He was a politician and, like all politicians, became a wealthy man by siphoning off much of the Palestinian relief money for his personal gain. In short, he was just another sleazy politician

Your earlier claim that Arafat earned the Nobel Peace Prize but feel Shimon Perez did not earn it seems strange. After the past week in Oslo, it seems to me the Nobel Peace Prize has become even more irrelevant than it was when these two won it. Along with other winners such as Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, the award has, for years, been a subject of ridicule.

Now to your earlier question about the color of my neck. I was born and raised in West Texas. My parents were good people that had a successful marriage for over 50 years before they passed away. My father was in WWII and my mother helped make landing gears for B-17's during that time. We had moved to California for the four years. Both of them had a deep rooted belief in America and freedom and instilled that in me. They were also Christians but not the type that went every time the church doors opened. My personal beliefs of today mirror my upbringing in that respect. My father was a successful businessman but we were not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. I learned a work ethic and then worked hard to have a successful career. I retired to Thailand a little over one year ago.

Since I have always considered myself to be patriotic, have a deep respect for freedom and democracy and the military that protects those freedoms, have my very own private religious convictions and was never afraid to work...if those traits throw me into the "red neck" category, then I will proudly bear the moniker.

I trust to have answered some of your questions. Overlook any typos